Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/North8000 Discussion

Request for article and/or topic ban
For the past year, user has engaged in disruptive, tendentious discussions at the Homophobia article talk page. His 266 talk page contributions have consisted of mostly of claims that the article is poorly written, biased and that corrective edits to the article are being prevented by a "trio of editors". Notably North8000 has made exactly four edits to the article, consisting of reversions, restoration of reverted content and very minor edits.

His main argument boils down to the proposition that there are two etymological definitions to the term homophobia, and that the Wikipedia article is written to give undue weigh to one definition and is therefore a "POV mess". In his own words, "The core of the problem is that 80% of the article categorically calls ALL opposition to homosexuality "homophobia". When it does that it it uses only one of the definitions and pretends that the other does not exist. And, as such, the 80% weighs in on one side of the controversy." He has been asked repeatedly to provide sources to support his argument, or to simply edit the article, which he has agreed to do, but has consistently failed to follow through on. Instead he repeats the same argument, ad nauseum.

North8000's first talk page post at the Homophobia article on November 27, 2011 was titled "This article is a confusing POV & synthesis mess by blending in off-topic item" and the post started with "What a mess!"

North8000 has repeatedly accused a "trio of editors" (presumably Jenova20, Dominus Vobisdu and Rivertorch) of conspiratorially preventing the article from being fixed. He has repeatedly made the same arguments that have been refuted by many other editors. The pattern then turns to accusations of blocking and chasing editors away.

 Examples of accusations (emphasis added) 
 * 1) "...multitude of people who bring it up get ganged up on and chased away, one by one" (he later apologized)
 * 2) "POV tactic straight out of one of the activists training session"
 * 3) Well, the "big job" here is that there is a group of editors who LIKES that this article is badly POV'd, that it carries the torch for one side of the controversy, and that it states the view of one side of the controversy as fact
 * 4) "...a group has simply harangued / intimidated away the people who make the point or used the "double standard" approach that I described to prevent resolution."
 * 5) "The group here has been evading this topic, misstating it, and camouflaging it with a variety of insults, and even saying that sourcing is required to challenge the lack of sourcing."
 * 6) "Of course, the trio here missed the third alternative when the same problem has been noted by an immense number of people for the entire history of the article which is to start listening."
 * 7) "Just because the trio that likes it as-is has so-far managed to keep it that way does not make what is contained in that wide-ranging feedback a "dead horse".  The only dead horse is thinking that any one of the trio would be swayed from their quest by any argument or sourcing."
 * 8) "As such, it is being held up by minority activists, who are puppy-guarding a page which directly relates to their motives."
 * 9) "When folks responses go beyond disagreement into dirty pool tactics, as they continually have done here from the trio..."
 * 10) "As per the tactics that the trio has continuously used here, you have just completely mis-stated what I said."
 * 11) "No, an immense number of people have said the same thing about the article, and the trio keeps running them all off."
 * 12) "And no, what I said it hasn't gained traction with the POV trio that has been blockading the fix."
 * 13) "Of course the same group that blew them off and/or chased them away is not going to be convinced to fix it."
 * 14) "An immense number of people have pointed out the problems with this article, but a trio who likes its current POV has delayed repair by chasing them away one by one, and embedding their argument in the header."
 * 15) "There are things to be learned when a certain small group of people repetitively make false accusations and re-directs and avoid discussing the actual points of the conversation."

A pattern that has also been observed is that North8000 waits until a troll or an SPA posts a rant about the article, and then joins in the discussion, reopening the same arguments as before. Most times, he agrees to edit the article with sources, and then fades away, having taken no actual action to improve the article. Lather, rinse, repeat. Examples:

 Warnings (from different editors) 

Several editors have asked North8000 to stop the forum talk and edit the article, or move on. He has been formally warned on his talk page twice.
 * 1) March 20, 2012: North8000 was warned about disrupting the Homophobia talk page by Seb az86556
 * 2) June 18, 2012: "This is becoming disruptive, and it really needs to stop now. Please." by Rivertorch
 * 3) June 21, 2012: "Frankly after 3 months this is just disruptive and using the talk page as a forum." by Jenova20
 * 4) June 22, 2012: "Next stop is administrator support, this has been going on too long." by Insomesia
 * 5) November 11, 2012: I gave him a final warning to stop the disruptive talk page editing behavior. Even after this warning, North8000 persisted in disrupting the article talk page with the same recrudescent arguments, complaints and accusations. It is evident that he does not see this behavior as disruptive, in spite of being told so by no less than ten other editors. He has steadfastly rejected all efforts by the community to curtail his disruptive behavior.

While I believe that North8000's contribution history reflects a sincere interest in improving the encyclopedia, he has clearly exhausted the patience of the community at the Homophobia talk page. These are text book examples of WP:IDHT, WP:WINNING, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:DEADHORSE. I recommend at minimum a permanent article ban, or possibly a topic ban, to protect the article talk page and restore a collegial editing environment. This will free North8000 to redirect his efforts to areas where he can contribute in a productive and non-disruptive fashion. - MrX 16:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Response from North8000
I have just seen this. The above spins/misrepresents the situaition. A careful couple reads of the talk page history would dispel it and show that a boomerang is most appropriate. But the talk page is lengthy and not many are ready to do that. So it is going to take me at least an hour of work to prepare a summary of the relevant aspects of this, an hour which I won't have until tomorrow and even that will be a struggle. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Quick note, I didn't say #8, it was a quote of somebody else. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Support topic ban - North has a bias on homosexuality articles and was a problematic editor on straight pride with this same kind of thing if memory serves me correct. He believes the use of the word homophobia is used incorrectly in the article as it's not a real phobia (from past discussions on that talk page) and yet he never made the same arguments towards islamophobia or xenophobia. My assessment after so long is that he's too biased to edit the lgbt articles neutrally and his editing has been long since overtaken by talk page editing, instead of actual editing. Perfect example of his lack of neutrality, he's stated multiple times he wants the article renamed to Opposition to homosexuality, neutral or Wp:Commonname? no. He's just disrupting the talk page. I believe he needs a topic ban so that posting on the homophobia talk page on a daily basis is no longer a necessity for him or an issue for me and the 6+ other editors who end up replying to him with the same thing over and over...and over.
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know what to do with North at this point. He has his own opinion on what homophobia is and how the article should be written, but doesn't present the sources to back up his opinion, instead spending his time complaining on the talk page. It really has gotten disruptive after months and tons of conversations on the same exact thing over and over. Silver seren C 20:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban, or at the very least page ban. North8000 is effectively the reasonable face of the various SPAs, shouty IPs ("this article is BIASED!!11!!") and even established editors with extreme views on homosexuality   .  He's made 265 edits to the talk page and hasn't come up with a single useful, policy-compliant suggestion for changing the article.  Frankly every editor involved with the page is sick of having their time wasted by him - it is time that it stopped. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban on all LGBTI topics, very broadly construed, anywhere on WP, including article and user talk pages in addition to article space. This is by far the longest dead horse argument I've seen in WP, with 266 posts stretching over a period of one year now, with no sign that he ever intends to stop. It is also not the only such months-long filibuster he has waged, having done so also on the article on Intelligent Design, though he finally dropped that stick. This is clearly disruptive and tendentious behavior, and has consumed countless hours of valuable editor time. His vague questions and concerns have been patiently addressed by me and numerous other editors many times over, but apparently not finding them to his liking, he has made numerous accusations of bad faith against a vague group of editors. He has been warned many, many, many times that he is abusing the talk page as a soapbox, but he absolutely refuses to listen. In the last two days or so, ten editors expressed agreement on the article talk page that he was being disruptive (see here: []. Because of the considerable amount of editor time that this editor has wasted with his relentless filibustering and the fact that he has made editing on WP a very unpleasant and trying experience for his fellow editors, because he fails to treat them with respect and civility, and because he shows absolutely no sign of improving or at least stopping his disruptive behavior after six months, I have to conclude that this editor is a net liability to the project. Frankly, I would also support a community ban at this point, if it were proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support page ban topic ban broadly construed, at least. I haven't seen evidence of their intractableness elsewhere although it may exist. I gave up after many months of trying to see what reliable sources North8000 could be utilizing for their views. They were never forthcoming after many requests. I'm still open to Wikipedia-compliant changes to the article but instead it does seem North8000 would foment an argument until everyone else gave up, and then another SPA would pop up and off to the races with the same old discussion that had been long resolved as going nowhere. The FAQ on the page was created solely to address North8000's ongoing campaign. The archive counter is off, here is a link to see discussion that they've prompted starting in 2011. I think whatever point they wanted to make has come and gone with little evidence of the idea(s) taking hold. This has been explained many times over by many editors, some bluntly and some quite patiently, to little or no effect. Many hints at page and topic bans have been suggested and I don't think anyone was hoping it would get to this point but here we are. They may have very positive contributions elsewhere but this really has stalled any productive discussions on that talkpage and I don't think it's fair. Insomesia (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm amending to topic ban because it seems LGBT topics are a tough area for this editor to accept consensus and edit collegially. Insomesia (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support page ban or topic ban relating to homophobia. With regret, because I believe the user is a good-faith contributor on other topics, I must support a ban. Just to emphasize, this is not a content dispute—there are no article-space edits at issue—but a behavioral matter, a classic case of WP:IDHT and refusal to stand down and accept consensus. A multitude of editors, from longtime admins to newbies, have made innumerable efforts to engage constructively with the user at Talk:Homophobia and at his user page, to no avail. His response is typically to describe what's being said to him as "crap", lie low for a few weeks, and then reëmerge (frequently in company with an IP or new SPA) with the exact same tendatious arguments that have been refuted time and time again. Outside opinions have been sought at two separate noticeboards (I don't have diffs handy and am in a rush, sorry—I think they were at WP:NORN and WP:NPOVN Added: wait, here's one ) with the same result: North's argument gains no traction but he refuses to accept that. I made several serious efforts to try to resolve the situation, including this discussion on his talk page, but in the end, no dice. At this point, the disruption has become mind-numbing and beyond wearisome, and it needs to stop. Rivertorch (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposed to topic ban. I was left a notice that this topic was under discussion. I do not now watch the Homophobia page, though I may have in the past. Couldn't find my edits with a cursory search. I have not noticed North8000 behavior on other related articles. If it had been bad, I think I would have noticed. I had no idea you could vote an editor you didn't like off an article page. I thought you had to go first through mediation, then arbitration, both rather time-consuming. Interesting information. I will have to remember that.
 * I will have to leave it up to other editors whether to vote him off the article page. "Topic" seems too general as "topics" pop up everyplace: demographics in place articles, for Pete's sake! "Topic" just seems too broad IMO.
 * I would like to point out that the LGBT Project is extremely active, perhaps the only really active project in the English Wikipedia. There are few articles in which the topic of LGBT hasn't been raised. Are there other voices of dissent left in that article? Someone who is heterosexual should be watching the content IMO. Most people (and most readers) are not LGBT. This is not WikiLGBT! Student7 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw this garbage. If you think those who disagree with North are all homosexual, you are very, very wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "There are few articles in which the topic of LGBT hasn't been raised."???? Out of the four million plus articles on Wikipedia, the topic has been raised in a tiny minority of them. Or didn't you mean that? I am bewildered as to what you did mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support article ban including the talk page. No reason exists at this time (or has been demonstrated here) for a wider topic ban.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on all LGBT related articles - clear agenda here. GiantSnowman 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban What the first three people have said. Also, for his namechange to succeed, someone would have to come up with a new word that used neither "homo" or "phobia" and yet convey the meaning of both, which is frankly impossible. The rest is nonsense that I would like to see go away. -- Auric 21:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: When everyone is calling for a topic ban, would this include everything the LGBT project decides to stick a banner on? My concern here is that the project has been a little, um liberal, in some of the articles they believe are theirs, especially some of the BLP articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors that voted for the topic ban and strongly supports it, I would even more strongly oppose using the LGBT project banner as a criterion. Projects often use whimsical criteria on which articles to include or not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we wouldn't take the fact that someone chooses to "stick a banner on" a page as being a criterion. We would take the criterion as being that the page, or North8000's contribution, or both, actually deals with the topic. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's not rush to judgement until we hear what North has to say. If, as alleged, the problem has been around for a year, another day or so doesn't matter. Leaky  Caldron  21:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I hate AN/I Unfortunately, the AN/I process allows all kinds of nasty, unsupported allegations to be thrown at the target, in such volume that the subject cannot possibly respond to all of them. It's a forum where editors wanting another editor silenced, for political reasons or just disagreement, can go with the majority and create an online lynch mob. Yes, I've been the victim of such a process, and yes, I've changed my approach, but not because the AN/I process convinced me I was wrong. I've done it because I saw that the bigots here had a lot of power under this umbrella, so long as they are on the side of a majority opinion. We must be very careful to not let that happen here. Having said that, North8000 does appear to have a problem of perspective. We must note that he is not alone in his view. I think it is wrong, and have told him so. I don't think he sees me as part of "the group", and certainly not part of "the trio". Unfortunately, my comments have also been to no avail. What I hope can come out of this process is that, now that the issue has been brought to the attention of editors not previously involved, someone (more than one ideally) at a responsible level can talk to North, perhaps away from this thread, convince him of their impartiality, and politely point out the problem with what he is doing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A nice idea, but, I'm afraid, unrealistic. Numerous people have "talk[ed] to North ... and politely point[ed] out the problem with what he is doing" over the course of many months. He/she has never taken in what has been said, and I see no reason to suppose that he/she will suddenly do so because yet one more person does so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. Editor has worn out his welcome, taking productivity away from other editors. He has refused to relent, so the community must now act. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban - Seems to me his only crime here is accusing three editors of working collectively as a pro-LGBT group. Those sort of accusations are not abnormal on political or LGBT topic areas on either side. It seems to me this is a retaliation or response by those group of editors, who clearly resent North's opinion and views on them and the page; all three have formed a bloc here supporting his topic banning, but whether they want him removed for legitimate disruption or because he disagrees with them is really not certain to me. I'm not assuming bad faith on their part, but I can't say for certain this is isn't a move to get rid of an enemy. Banning North from commenting on the talk when he has clearly shown restraint from editing the article itself seems a bit unusual to me, but I await his explanation for his actions and views on the page. Toa  Nidhiki05  21:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, his accusations alone are not the problem. That would be a one off, and everyone could move on. The problem is North's persistence over a very long period, in the face of pretty strong but polite opposition, and the demands he places on those other polite editors of repeating responses uncountable times. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Making accusations against other editors on talk pages is disruptive and reason for a block. While unfounded accusations are always wrong, even ones made with good grounds should only be made in the appropriate fora, e.g., here at ANI.  Battleground tactics are strongly discouraged.  TFD (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Seems to me his only crime here is accusing three editors of working collectively as a pro-LGBT group."
 * If that were the only reason for this ANI with 15 examples, that would be reason enough for a block. What we have in addition to that is disruptive domination of talk discussion, with hypothetical solutions to non-existent problems; followed by denial; followed by refusal to stop the disruptive behavior. - MrX 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - In case anyone is wondering, I notified the involved editors who interacted with North8000 on the Homophobia article talk page. If anyone is aware of anyone that I missed, please notify them as well. - MrX 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support LGBT topic ban Seems that North8000 is unable to contribute constructively to the article and therefore nothing is lost in a topic ban, and it will enable other editors to work towards improvement.  A topic ban, rather than a ban on this specific article, is advisable, because otherwise this editor could just move to another article with the topic.  TFD (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Toa Nidhiki05. The quotes do not appear to be disruptive from an outside perspective. This seems to me to be three editors retaliating because their preferred POV is being challenged. Since the Fae overuse of Homophobia for any of his critics, I am hesitant to support anymore labeling of that sort or topic banning because folks do not like criticism. The only thing North8000 is accused of above is in believing there is a cabal. Annoying? Always. Disruptive? Perhaps. Altogether topic ban worthy? Not in my opinion. However, I strongly recommend North8000 present hard policy based changes with supporting reliable sources quickly before this goes to Arbcom.--v/r - TP 22:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  Since the Fae overuse of Homophobia for any of his critics, I am hesitant to support anymore labeling of that sort or topic banning because folks do not like criticism.' - wow, just wow. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW. It's never been North8000 vs. "The unnamed trio". There is a growing list of editors that have had the same unproductive interactions and North8000 has done blanket accusations against all. I thought I was a part of the trio but I have no idea if I ever was or not. North8000 has been asked time and time again for any supporting reliable sources for the changes they seek. Instead it turns into meta discussions, again and again, despite quite reasonable efforts to solicit specific actionable edits/changes to the article. Insomesia (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I think I was misidentified as part of the "trio". Feel free to take my place! Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but it's not supported by the diffs above. What is supported is that North8000 has been throwing around accusations of POV and a cabal.  Given the topic, I'm not about to support a topic ban.  The Fae issues are my reasoning.  Fae called all of his critics homophobes and wanted them silenced.  I am concerned this is more of that same attitude and until I see stronger diffs, I'm going to be cautious. If this were an WP:RFC/U, I might endorse a summary that required North8000 show his cards; if any.  But I am concerned because we're in a topic area where folks will hold their tongues for fear of offending others.--v/r - TP 22:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What is "Fae"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably they're talking about User:Fæ. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty pointless bringing up a banned user here. I've never heard of him/her. Not everyone else will have either. The sins of someone else should be irrelevant to an independent hearing for North here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right. But you asked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "is an insult to many gay and non-gay people who use it" This is why I oppose. Criticism is not an insult.  Until the folks involved realize that, I'm not going to support a topic ban against one of their critics.--v/r - TP 01:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are so many comments here so shallow? There's only two simple things to think about, and so many editors can't get past one. It's not just the fact that he is critical that's the problem. It's the fact that he has been doing it for nearly a year, despite repeated, very polite rejection of his view. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya'all haven't shown anything other than he believes there is a cabal. Now, when that cabal, whether it really is one or not, suddenly comes out in force to ask that the community endorse his silence, I get cautious.  If you want to show that he is making accusations of a cabal, ok, but show evidence of other disruptive behavior as well.  Since you haven't, I don't think it's the communities responsibility to do the digging.  I'm not seeing why that's shallow, nor am I seeing why it's helpful to call 'so many comments' shallow.  It's certainly not convincing me to your argument.  In fact, it strengthens mine.  Is this what your discussions with North8000 has consisted of?  If so, perhaps you should be topic banned.--v/r - TP 13:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. North means well, but he simply isn't making constructive contributions in this area. Disagreeing with consensus is not a problem, but pushing the same issue for months and months starts to become disruptive. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support article ban and/or topic ban. WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LISTEN, etc. to the point where I've stopped participating widely in discussions for quite some time. Repeating yourself isn't productive, nor fun. North8000 has apparently brought forth the same perceived issue for 1/3 of one year. User Toa is mistaken. North's disruption is in main part regarding the definition of homophobia and his edits. Though, I would think the WP:NOTFORUM discussions are not productive either. But, I don't believe North is a terrible person simply because he hasn't moved a discussion forward. Teammm $talk email$ 22:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * not quite support I think he's wasting his time on this article because it has been owned by the LGBT project for years and always will be. Therefore while I suppose in some sense his resistance can be called disruptive, and I'm unwilling to read through everything to determine for myself exactly how well-grounded his complaints are, I cannot endorse the principle that one very POV-organized project can use AN/I to defend the editing of their topics from outside criticism. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's this "owned by the LGBT project" claim all about? That reads at least as badly as North's accusations about the terrible trio here. Appalling generalisations like that never help these discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, you say "I'm unwilling to read through everything to determine for myself exactly how well-grounded his complaints are". Unfortunately, your comments confirm that you have not read through the relevant background, and so don't know what the issues are. (This kind of thing is one of the reasons I usually avoid AN/I like the plague: people who make often strongly opinionated comments without first finding out what the issues are.) This stuff about being "owned by the LGBT project" is nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, you really have missed the point if you think that this is a question of trying to defend the editing of a topic from outside criticism. It is a question of one editor who has been persistently disruptive, making literally hundreds of posts all plugging the same point of view, over a very prolonged period, long after it has become clear that he/she is flying in the face of consensus. And taht consensus is not just from "one very POV-organized project": I, for example, have absolutely zero connection to the "LGBT project", but I once, months ago, tried to help this editor to understand what the problems with his/her editing were, but to no avail. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban. As an uninvolved editor, we need to hear from North8000, or a week goes by. If there is no defense within a week, or if the defense is weak, then I would support warning the editor.  Until now, as far as I can tell, he has only received warnings from involved individuals who he understandably chose to ignore.  An official consensus-supported warning from the community should precede an actual ban in such a case, and only after he has had a reasonable chance to tell his side.  The apparent willingness here to article or topic ban someone without such a warning is worrisome.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "After he has had a reasonable chance to tell his side"? He/she has been telling his/her side for 6 months. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant here, in this ANI discussion. At least for those of us who have not participated on the article in question.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support article ban, I've watched and occasionally contributed at that page for some years, and this is an unprecedented bludgeoning of the already-pulped equine. William Avery (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

'''I have just seen this. The above spins/misrepresents the situation. A careful couple reads of the talk page history would dispel it and show that a boomerang is most appropriate. But the talk page is lengthy and not many are ready to do that. So it is going to take me at least an hour of work to prepare a summary of the relevant aspects of this, an hour which I won't have until tomorrow and even that will be a struggle.' Sincerely, North8000'' (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to repost this. We all saw it and it misrepresents all the comments that came in after you posted it. Insomesia (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Been at it since March. Still doesn't get what the issue is. Keeps ranting. Narrow topic ban is indeed appropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support talk page ban. This is kind of backwards from what we normally so -- that is, ban editing the article but allow commenting on the talk page -- but I'd be in favor of banning N8000 from the talk page, unless he is commenting on or responding to comments on his own edits to the article.  This would encourage him to edit the article to correct the problems he sees, and, of course, those edits would be subject to the usual restrictions on OR, RS etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. At least for now. Only 4 edits? That means he's not edit-warring, he's talking - at significant length. So others don't like his opinions? Well, the word "homophobia" literally means "fear of 'same'", shorthand for "fear of homosexuality". However, the gay movement has hijacked the term for political purposes, to claim that any opposition to homosexuality is based on "fear" rather than on reason. But like it or not, it's in common usage. There's no getting around that fact. So, North simply needs to face the reality that, even though his argument is etymologically "true", common usage trumps the "truth". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A very poor post. What the word literally means is irrelevant in the English language. And to say that the word has been hijacked by the gay movement is an insult to many gay and non-gay people who use it. And the issue not just a disagreement over opinion. It's North's repetition of that disagreement on the article's Talk page for month after month after month. It's amazing that others have remained polite to him for so long. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your ignorance of English is not my problem. Meanwhile... Yes, he needs to resign himself to the fact he's not going to win the argument, even though he's got etymology on his side. That's the way it is here, sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. We all know that xenophobic people run away and hide at the sight of furriners.-- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or they shoot at them. Xenophobia... fear of foreigners. It works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs - I am well aware of the claimed etymology of the word, but seeming etymology has little to do with current meaning of multitudes of English words. This page is a notice board. That doesn't mean it is a flat piece of timber. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 id right, Bugs. The "appeal to etymology" is specious. The classic case of this is claiming that, by definition antisemitism refers to hostility to all Semitic people.  If I'm anti-Maltese or anti-Ethiopian, am I being antisemitic?  No, because that's simply not what the word means.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a fact that words, especially those that are little used, are constantly repurposed in English to suit the requirements of its various speakers; but in this particular case, where the users doing the repurposing are homosexuals and they are looking for a word to describe a widely acknowledged social prejudice, people like Bugs have resort to such vocabulary as 'hijack'. Part of the culture war is that homosexuals (a very 1950s word) are simply not to be allowed a word to articulate their grievance, even when the usage is half a century old, and entered into respected dictionaries. I'm old enough to remember when the word in dispute was 'gay'. ('Gay' might be normal,  "homosexual" is a pathological state, no?). Anyway, the LGBT community has for a long time looked for a word to describe people and beliefs that it regards as problematic, and why should it not? Can any such usage be allowed to exist? Well, I can see that the other side get antsy when a  pseudoscience term  ('homophobic') gets pinned on them. Many happy returns, and a pinch and a punch for the n'th of the month and all that. William Avery (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are formal terms. The terms "gay" and "straight" are colloquial terms. A term "something-phobic" means "fearful of-something" to my educated ears. So they're looking for a label, and they think that abusing the word "homophobic" is good because they can't think of anything better? It being a culture war, how about "enemy"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not only homosexual people who use the word homophobia to describe negative attitudes towards homosexual people. That actually seems a quite bigoted attitude. And again, the etymology is irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant. And funny you should use that word "bigoted", since that's what I call the ones you call "homophobic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Etymology IS irrelevant, because we are not discussing this on a flat piece of wood. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're going against the grain. You're in a splinter group. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors can still be disruptive on the talk page. Complaining about the same/similar things again and again without consensus ever forming is disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose after reading the 10 pages of archived talk (which was necessary, because the archives could charitably be called "fucked up") I see no valid reason for a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The archiving has been corrected so that the current talk and Talk:Homophobia/Archive 12 - all 288k of it - are easily accessible. Talk:Homophobia/Archive 12 shows how the same discussion came up, was refuted, and then was revisited time and time again to no change in consensus and complete with numerous ignored requests for reliable sources to support any changes. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support article ban and/or topic ban. Yeah, the line into tendentiousness has been crossed.  Time to step away from the horse. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support kicking this joker to the curb. Reading through all those talk page comments is no different from the reams of crap from the likes of  at Barack Obama-related articles over the years.  Sooner or later you just have to cut your losses and pry the crazies away from the topic that they obsess isn't Telling It Like It Is(tm). Tarc (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Basically his participation to the talk page is a promotion of his own views on the topic with hardly any references to reliable sources beyond some dictionaries. On Wikipedia that is (loftily) called WP:OR. Noth8000 keeps saying that 80% of the article is misusing the term, but provided no sources to back up his view that such-and-such topic is contested by some reliable source as properly falling under the homophobia umbrella. Nor has he disputed the reliability of any sources used in the article. His participation was just WP:SOAP. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I haven't read it all but I have read quite a few discussions from different time periods. Topic ban is ridiculous as it's confined to one article. Regarding a ban from that article, he makes well reasoned points and it's not trolling or vandalism. Whether his points have enough merit to change the article needs to be decided by a wider consensus than just people from the LGBT Project. If that consensus is against him and the talk page discussions are continued to an excessive extent, then I'd support a page ban. Zaalbar (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't read it, have you? The basic issue is that consensus IS against him, and he has been at it for almost a year. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The so-called consensus keeps getting made by people from the LGBT Project. A wider consensus is needed. Zaalbar (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus was made repeatedly by all the editors there. Based on reliable sources. After many discussions where no valid rationale was presented for any change. Blaming a project, or any editors, isn't convincing. Start a neutral RfC and see if there is any reliable sources for the changes sought. The editors there have been extremely open to "fixing" perceived problems, using community-approved approaches. No reason to not insist we use reliable sources to back major rewrites to articles. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, consensus made by the LGBT or Conservatism Project is worth very little. A list of sources isn't required for the mainly structural changes North wants. Zaalbar (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus was made by the editors at the talkpage who may or may not be a part of either project. And yes sources are definitely required to fundamentally change the structure in the ways proposed. We let the sources lead the way, if the majority of reliable sources were reporting something different then what we have then we must change what we have. No evidence that we are in conflict with the majority of reliable sources. That's been the point the entire time. You can opine that the sky is really a different color then what everyone else thinks, but we are still going to go with what the majority of reliable sources state. If a significant minority opinion supports a different color then we can report that a s a fringe view - also well sourced. But no reliable sources for any change to what we have has ever been presented. Insomesia (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources were presented... do you mean No sources at all were presented? Or by chance would this be one of those cases where sources were indeed presented as evidence that a POV really exists, and those same sources were then adjudged to be "UNRELIABLE" as evidence that the POV really exists, and so therefore maybe the POV doesn't really exist? I've seen that scenario in a few of wikipedia's backwaters over the years. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean exactly that on Wikipedia we really on WP:Reliable sources, even if presenting WP:Fringe ideas. Without reliable sources to further your ideas the discussion is rather flat. I believe a ranty YouTube video of a preacher was presented to support the fringe position. That was considered and dismissed. You can read the archive yourself to see what sources were presented. Insomesia (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC
 * Moving the article to Opposition to homosexuality and changing some content to reflect this move doesn't require sources as the content is still maintained but the POV slant is changed. Whether that POV slant is more neutral or less needs to be decided by a wider portion of editors than it has been so far. Zaalbar (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Renaming the article as well as restructuring were ideas considered and dismissed by consensus. If anyone wants to again propose those ideas I'm quite sure the same reasoning would come to the same consensus by any group of editors as we all rely on the same reliable sources to guide. You or any other editor is welcome to propose renaming the article and doing so in a widely available RfC would likely result in the same commonsense decision. We go by what reliable sources dictate as conservative as that approach may seem. Insomesia (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Indefinite Article Article Talk Page Ban As per Shirt58. The user's clearly being disruptive and isn't responding well to consensus. He may have some kind of bias, but he isn't causing problems as far as I saw outside of this single page, so for now at least, a topic ban is unwarranted. I think forcing him to take a break from this tendentiousness might do him some good as an editor, and certainly would benefit Wikipedia as a whole. Coppaar  ( talk ) 02:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there’s always the "Reichstag Corollary to consensus", which is good to remember and meditate upon: To the same extent that ‘consensus’ is obtained by means of ejecting all the dissenting parties from the discussion, it ought to be questioned how much it can be termed a true ‘consensus’. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose and second User:Mangoe's reasons - also seems overly punitive of dissenting opinion on talkpage discussion, based only on opponents' point-of-view, which is not how wp works in most other areas, or is supposed to ideally work. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is being punished for a dissent POV. They are being held accountable for holding the talkpage hostage by engaging a fringe view in a soapbox manner. This has been a chilling effect on any other real talkpage use. This has been a year of entertaining Noth8000's POV, with no reliable sources to support any change. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support article talk-page ban only.
 * Title of this thread is "User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia".
 * North8000 has been disruptively editing at talk:Homophobia.
 * Talk-page ban for North8000 at talk:Homophobia solves this problem.
 * Anything else is superfluous to solving this problem. I've said my piece about why it's a problem above. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support of broad LGBT topic ban across the entire encyclopedia. Talk:Homophobia isn't the only place where this problem has occurred, and I've previously raised the issue about his edit warring/tag teaming on homosexual agenda and other articles. User:North8000 has made 266 edits to the homophobia talk page for approximately one year, consisting of a single, tendentious argument to redefine homophobia.  North's argument is no different than those of IP's on the  racism and antisemitism pages who say people should be allowed to dislike and oppose non-whites and Jews because of the color of their skin and their religion without being labeled racists or antisemites.  He should not be allowed anywhere near LGBT articles or their talk pages since he has shown no interest in improving them. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have some gall stating what his intentions are. Whatever happened to WP:GOODFAITH? Accusing him of tag-teaming? Funny, because a quick glance of the archives seems to imply the opposite. His goal isn't to redefine "homophobia." It's to crate a fair and balanced page without a bias towards the LGBT movement. —Maktesh (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I think TParis said it better than I could, but I concur with his reasoning (minus the Fae bit, which I have limited knowledge of and no opinion). While the accusations are a concern, I don't think that warrants a topic ban; I don't see that solving the accusations. I think that needs to be addressed, a topic ban isn't the way to do that. I'm not saying his arguments have merit, but I don't think an editor should be topic banned for being wrong. - SudoGhost 02:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The ban doesn't have anything to do with them being right or wrong. It's due to the tendentious nature of beating a dead horse after many discussions have gone nowhere and absolutely no reliable sources have been presented to defend some rather fringe opinions. The editors there have been waiting for collegial editing to appear. Insomesia (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose - as per ‘consensus’ is obtained by means of ejecting all the dissenting parties from the discussion, it ought to be questioned how much it can be termed a true ‘consensus’. From my experience of such wiki articles, North's concerns are highly likely to be correct - You  really  can  03:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "likely"? Have you actually extended us the courtesy of reading the whole fucking farrago? William Avery (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No one has ever tried to silence consensus, what we have done is insisted on reliable sources to make vast changes to a well-sourced article. Insomesia (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope I'm counting correctly: we're at 19-11. Not a vote, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's a long term issue with an editor we should be doing an RFC/U, not an ANI.  NE Ent 04:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with Zaalbarand and Toa Nidhiki05. As one who's been involved with the discussion, I can vouch for North8000. He is simply calling out a problem, and challenging a page where the development has been stonewalled by LGBT activist users. If anything, they should be under review as well. Even bringing the discussion to this point is improper. They are continually attempting to silence a legitimate editor, and are even willing to stoop to this level? Shameful. —Maktesh (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling other editors activists isn't helping. We're talking about a behavior problem and it seems to be a recurring one. Insomesia (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate AN/I - Part 2 That's yet another post that proves why. It tells us that those opposing North are "LGBT activist users". Sorry. Wrong. And I've already pointed it out several times. I have opposed North. I am not gay, nor LGBT in any way at all. It's name calling, and /or incompetent editing. On top of this, we've had many posts saying that disagreeing is not a reportable offence, so North has done nothing wrong. These posts ignore the massively complex (that's sarcasm folks) double point of the report. It's not just disagreement. It's repeating the same refuted point over, and over, and over again, for almost a year. Yes, it's got two layers to it, but was that really too hard to understand? And, the name calling from North about "the trio" was also described as part of the problem. But I guess someone who feels it's OK to incorrectly lay all the blame at the feet of "LGBT activist users" won't comprehend this point. In other words, there's a lot of illogical, name calling, incompetent posts here. This is not a rational discussion. North's worst friends are some of those trying to support him here. I  HATE  AN/I. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether you are homosexual or not I don't care - but you have since the very beginning of your editing contributions had a focus on homosexuality - diff from three years ago - You  really  can  06:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, you should talk. You got 37 editors endorsing Dominus Vobisdu's observation that your Wikipedia contributions are highly homophobic. You have some nerve to point to "a focus on homosexuality" in another editor. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dominus Vobisdu contributions - You Binksternet also have a massive homosexual edit focus - You  really  can  07:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gay baiting? What an incredibly ignorant comment. Gay people are human beings and  have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, and even sons, daughters, and friends.  There are a million reasons why HiLo48, Dominus Vobisdu, Binksternet and others commented on a topic about homosexuality, none of which remotely involve them being gay.  On the other hand Youreallycan, your very first edits as a Wikipedian were to praise and promote the teachings of Osho,, a man who believed that homosexuals should not be considered human beings.  Using Youreallycan logic, should we also assume that because your very first contributions were to Osho, that you also believe that homosexuals are not human beings?  You certainly tried to cover it up. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @User:Viriditas your unfounded bigoted accusations are filth - pure personally attacking filth - You  really  can  08:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Viriditas LOL - Boring - yawn - lol  You  really  can  07:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Time to "cut and run" now, YRC. Be prudent. Doc   talk  07:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is why I avoid ANI like the plague: discussions mushroom from their original scope to encompass everything but the kitchen sink, and if there's any opportunity to cast unfounded aspersions, someone invariably steps up to the plate. There is an incredible amount of baseless (gropes for polite word) nonsense occupying space in this thread. Yes, there are LGBT editors who watch Homophobia—no surprise. That's entirely appropriate, and I am one of them. Yes, there are members of WikiProject LGBT Studies who watch the page—also no surprise. That's also entirely appropriate, although I'm not one of them. Pardon me for rolling my eyes (incivilly, no doubt) at the thought—implied in several posts above—that the motives of LGBT editors or WikiProject members is somehow suspect by virtue of users' identities or affiliations. It's an ugly implication, and it's one we've seen at ANI before. Focus, please. At the risk of repeating myself, this complaint (which I played no role in filing, although I confess the thought of doing so had crossed my mind) has nothing to do with the content of Homophobia, nothing to do with any article content whatsoever, nothing to do with the concept of homophobia or the etymology of the word, nothing to do with cabals or trios or WP:Ownership or silencing those with opposing views. It also has fuck-all to do with desysopped editors with three-letter usernames beginning with 'F'. It's very, very simple, and it goes like this: Over the course of a year, one editor has repeatedly engaged in WP:IDHT behavior on one talk page, and this behavior has continued in the face of countless polite requests to desist. As I said months ago, North is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to repeat that opinion—right or wrong—ad infinitum; for any editor to do so on any talk page is always disruptive. There are troubling, battleground-ish characteristics to some of his comments that may warrant additional scrutiny, but what's at issue here is really very simple: disruption on one talk page and a request for relief through page ban. End of story, end of rant. Rivertorch (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The talkpage archiving had a miscue on the counter. Talk:Homophobia/Archive 12 now has the North8000 discussions contained on one page in order for those interested. Insomesia (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. The editor's persistent refusal to drop the stick and accept consensus is extremely disruptive, and is not going to achieve any useful result, no matter how long it continues. Most of the "oppose" comments are based on misunderstandings of what the issues are, such as the mistaken impression that the whole thing is a consiracy by the "LGBT project" to silence anyone who disagrees with them. I, for example, have no connection whatever with that "project", and no particular interest in articles on homosexuality-related issues (or "LGBT-related issues", as political correctness apparently dictates I should call it nowadays), but back in June I tried to explain to the editor what the problems were with the point of view he was pushing. Doing so was a waste of my time, jsut as simialr attempts by other editors have been a waste of their time. Many editors have wasted their time in sincere attempts to communicate with this editor, who is incapable of being communicated with, and persistently fails to hear what they are saying. Enough is enough: we must put a stop to this endless waste of hours of time that other editors could be using to make more constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose topic ban. Silencing the opposition is not right. Seems to me we have 3 editors who are passionate about the homosexual movement and want this guy gone because he doesnt support their political views. The article is a mess. It's a bloody POV and biased mess.  Caden  cool  10:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So you are part of the Nazi cabal that supports gassing and lynching fags in public? Awesome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell????  Caden  cool  10:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A-ha. I'm glad you're confused or offended. See &mdash; that's point you (and others) are missing: We are here for a topic ban, not because North disagrees with people, but because everyone who disagrees with him is part of a cabal, has an agenda, must be gay, hates him personally, and is most definitely insane, doesn't know English, and has the lowest IQ ever. That's the issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally attacking me was uncalled for. As for the topic ban, I have said NO. Don't like it? Too bad.  Caden  cool  10:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are supporting personal attacks on others. It's only fair to call you out on that. Don't like it? Too bad. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not. You attacked me for having German blood. What's next? You going to start attacking me for my blond hair and blue eyes now? Caden  cool  11:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what your blood is. Nor do I know about your eye color or hair or whatever. What I do know is that you are defending someone who's been launching personal attacks and forum-rants. And now you want to allow that person to continue. If I don't like that it's simply "too bad"? If you don't think personal attacks are OK, what do you suggest should be done about it? Or is it only a concern when someone attacks you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what I say...you're a bully. And I think that you should of been blocked for calling me a Nazi (because of my German blood) and for edit warring to keep it in.  Caden  cool  12:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How could you have been attacked for having german blood when you have not previously disclosed such a thing. He was making a WP:POINTY point, but it was meant as a point, not as an actual accusation. I think that is quite clear. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Caden, it wasn't a personal attack in context. Seb az86556, you should know by now that invoking Nazi or Hitler in a discussion is never going to make anyone see your point of view.  Ever.  It has only ever inflamed a discussion and offended the person you are trying to convince.  Let's just move on without any more Nazi or Hitler references, ok?--v/r - TP 13:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment*. I have just removed some of the worst off-topic name-calling. I realise this topic is emotional but there's no need to indulge in a race to the bottom, behaviour-wise. Please keep the discussion on-topic. Ban, or no ban? Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  11:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted. People who support personal attacks need to be called out on it; that is very much on topic, since it is the topic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I profoundly disagree that calling someone a member of a Nazi cabal is a constructive contribution. I won't revert again to remove these comments but the next person on either side of this who uses similar methods of argumentation will get a disruption block from me. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  11:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See comment on my talkpage. You failed. And you're not the only one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts) Ahem. Can we please check the drama at the door, just this once? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, I take your point, but it's a pointy point. Caden, what's at issue here really has nothing to do with political views; it's about someone who keeps saying the same thing over and over until everyone is sick to death of it. Forget, for a moment, the topic of the article associated with the talk page, and pretend it's the least controversial topic imaginable. Pretend it's Talk:Pistachio, and an editor is making some argument about pistachios, claiming repeatedly that Pistachio needs to be rewritten for some reason—any reason. Nearly everyone watching the page reads the argument, considers it, and disagrees, but the editor keeps making the argument again and again, dismissing other editors' thoughtful replies and just repeating himself over the course of dozens of threads and the better part of a year. That is what this is about—not a content dispute or a battle of ideologies but merely a plain, old-fashioned refusal to drop the stick. Rivertorch (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. I've only started watching the talk page of the homophobia article recently and I've no emotional investment in the article either way. In my opinion, North8000 appears to be a useful editor of other sections of the encyclopedia and I don't think his/her participation on the talk page of the homophobic article is a deliberate effort to be disruptive. While we all have biases, some recognised some not, as editors we should edit articles and participate in article discussions in a way that respects authoritative sources even when these go against our personal view of the world. As stated above, North8000's main point of contention about the article rests upon a rejection of the meaning of the word "homophobia" as used in the article where he/she would wish the article to reflect the literal etymological meaning of the component parts of that compound term. Therefore, he/she argues, the article should cover only aversion to or fear of homosexuality while opposition to homosexuality on grounds that are determined by factors other than explicit fear or aversion should be covered in another article. He/she states explicitly that this is her goal so that people who merely think differently than he/she does about homosexuality (i.e. that is is "wrong") are not labelled as phobic. That may or may not be a supportable position to argue for outside of wikipedia but it ignores the actual wider meaning of the term in contemporary usage and as copiously supported in reliable sources which primarily understand homophobia as a form of discrimination rather than a clinical entity. He/she is mistaken in a normal moral confusion between "ought" and "is". He/she believes the word "ought" to mean one thing so as not to stigmatise opponents of homosexuality while ignoring the actual usage of the term. Over an extended period of time and when presented with reasonable and sourced rationales, he/she has not significantly altered his/her arguments to account for the fact that reliable sources do not support his/her contention of how the term "homophobia" ought to be understood. In fact, North8000 has largely neglected to present reliable and appropriate sources to support his/her interpretation. Instead, in many instances, the talk page has been utilised as a forum to disseminate his/her views on the topic. The argument, such as it is, that he/she has presented has been addressed repeatedly and there is no movement on the issue as the sources do not support it and it is extremely unlikely that the situation is going to change in the near-term. As such, her participation on the talk page is non-productive and a waste of everyone's time. A topic ban will allow everyone, including North8000, to redirect their energies to more useful encyclopedic tasks. As regards the allegation that a "trio of editors" are operating as "cabal", "chasing away" editors who disagree with them, etc, I find this a bad faith allegation that ignores the reasoned and generally civil engagement of those who disagree with North8000's position. Indeed, they've displayed more forbearance than I would have in waiting so long before initiating these proceedings. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - well I don't know about the topic ban, but I think that a block for calling someone a Nazi (whether to "make a point" or not) and then edit warring to keep these accusation is probably warranted, and that YRC's accusations about editors having a "focus on homosexuality" are equally unhelpful. Such behavior does nothing to help resolve the situation, and is not acceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Would like to see North's observations but a topic ban is wrong if he's edited the article only 4 times. There is some (to some) very annoying and potentially unacceptable behaviour on the talk page. North needs to address that aspect, especially repeating the "trio" claims. Admin warning and voluntary agreement should be the first step. Leaky  Caldron  11:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly the point, though - he's edited the page four times, but the talkpage 265 times, at all times pushing the same argument over and over again, even though it has been rejected by nearly every editor that has visited the page, not just those who are highly active on the page and/or part of the LGBT Project (I, for example, am neither). It is getting to the point that nearly every thread (and yes, I know it's difficult to search, because the archives are seriously fucked up), whatever it's about, gets hijacked by him, making his same argument over and over again and repeatedly attacking other editors there.   He doesn't understand that his ideas are being rejected not because there's some sort cabal running the page, but because his ideas are not compatible with Wikipedia policy. It's a perfect example of WP:IDHT and it's a serious time-sink for everyone involved.  Whether a topic ban is deserved or not I don't know, but if we don't at least get a talkpage ban from this one article, we are going to be back here again soon. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As usual, Draconian solutions are not a solution. The editor does not appear to have disrupted the article, and so the concept of a topic ban does not mean it will affect the project one whit.  WikiChecker shows the editor with 266 talk page edits, or about 1% of his total edits - which is not an absurd number or percentage.   And far less than I have seen other editors make on other talk pages by a large amount.   Nor does his record show any super concentration on LGBT issues (heck - not even any concentration on LGBT issues on the past 10,000 edits!).   Topic bans for people who are not heavily editing on the topic are simply silly - the guy seems much more interested in folk music than anything else.  Thus this is a clear case of attempted over-reaction to something for which a topic ban is not a rational answer in the first place.   Collect (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Draconian would be a block, a limited topic ban is not draconian. It's an effective way to deal with a specific issue. If it's not a large amount of the total edits, then it's not too onerous. A much stricter measure would be topic banning someone from a topic they primarily edit. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you quite realize how many articles are covered by "LGBT" broadly construed? We have four edits to one article - no sign of LGBT emphasis in the last 10,000 edits, and you would bar him from tens of thousands of articles?  Nope - there is no reason for such a Draconian solution.  Sorry -- and there does not appear to be WP:CONSENSUS for that result either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't add up. If North800 doesn't edit much in a topic area, but when the editor does it is disruptive, it is not draconian to topic ban from that area. It's effective, and will have little impact on the editor beyond that. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, you are consistently against topic bans of editors of a great number of editors:
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive215
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive700
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647
 * but seemingly no issues with other topic bans where editors have been disruptive with very different POVs, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive757, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would point out that I have routinely opposed Draconian measures some dozens of times - so that sort of ad hom argument is unworthy of this noticeboard.
 * Meanwhile: Four edits != major disruption. No sign of LGBT emphasis in past 10,000 edits. Barring from tens of thousands of articles is disruptive. Unless, of course, you feel tens of thousands of articles is not "significant"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North has made 14.5% of the total edits to the talk page over it's 5½ year history, even though he has only participated for less than a year. In that time, he has made 31.7% of the total edits. That's pretty extraordinary for someone who has only edited the article four times. By the way, we are talking about disruption of the talk page, not the article itself. The point that is being willfully avoided is that those edits were excessive in number, repetitive, nonconstructive and occasionally uncivil. Draconian would be to indef or ban North8000, which a few are calling for, but I believe he needs to be prevented from disrupting the article talk page and turning it into a forum. - MrX 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In which event it appears that his assent to avoid that talk page for a year makes this "topic ban" discussion a tad moot. Collect (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately his word that he was leaving the page before wasn't kept. It would be best if his takeaway from all this is that he needs to work with other editors and accept consensus even if it disagrees with his personal views. Reigniting the same discussion and convincing no one after a year is an indication that you are no swaying consensus. Being asked for sourcing to support your view, repeatedly, and failing to do so and instead arguing a hypothetical point even after many have tried to see your point ... shows an unwillingness to respect other editors. We don't have to be friends or even like each other but we do have to allow consensus to build and accept it when it doesn't go our way. North8000 has been unwilling to do this, apparently on a number of LGBT issues. No one says they can't have a POV, but we do insist on reliable sourcing to back up article changes and abiding by consensus. Insomesia (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The editor is being disruptive on that talk page, repeating the same arguments, making the same points, and making the same accusations of a group conspiracy. Editors can be disruptive purely through talk page posts, and lack of clue in accepting that the consensus disagrees with them. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think North800's own statement below is indicative of a battlefield mentality, with it's continuous references to "the guardians" and a seemingly "it's everyone else's fault that there is a conflict" type responses. He has been disruptive, and relied on original research throughout much of it. Talk:Homophobia/Archive_12, Talk:Homophobia/Archive_12, Talk:Homophobia/Archive_12. As highlighted here: Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33: "North8000, the current lead (with reliable sources to back it up) is the definition of homophobia, get over it. You can't just change the definition of a word just because you happen to disagree with its meaning. Arguing about the meaning with no reliable sources to back you up is your POV ranting. It is plain unhelpful and just a waste of time." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

 * Comment I would praise some sort of voluntary "break" by North in that talk page, as that " beating a dead horse" appears to be not more than a waste of time. Over 250 edits, mainly about the same identical point, are a bit too much. On the contrary, to solve his doubts, he could/should raise an eventual RfC about that specific problem. Cavarrone (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000 has made numerous declarations they were leaving the page and they have broken everyone of those pledges. The discussions tend to end when everyone else walks away leaving them with the last word and no one else willing to do battle. Insomesia (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately he already takes voluntary breaks. It would actually be better if he would stay involved by doing the research and editing the article, and then engage in discussions about those specific edits. - MrX 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Topic ban necessary because he was heavily involved in Straight pride on the talk page too and still doesn't understand the policies: WP:Burden, WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT. He has not learned since april this year what they mean and anyone here arguing or voting oppose with misleading arguments or labelling everyone on the homophobia talk page as an LGBT activist needs to stay on topic. North8000 is ignoring multiple policies to push a bias into LGBT articles, including redefining homophobia without presenting a single source and personally attacks those who disagree. He has been warned for 6 months plus yet carried on with his argument, breaching WP:IDHT and WP:STICK in order to accuse a vague group of editors (a "trio") of controlling the article (So add WP:PERSONAL ATTACK) even though there's about 8 people who in fact are regulars to the talk page. I don't even edit Homophobia yet i've had to watchlist the page for so long because of North8000, he's a nightmare and he's too biased to stay on any articles dealing with conflict between LGBT and heterosexuals (Straight Pride and homophobia). I'd support a topic ban just on that area and a reminder to him that this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a forum where he can air his views endlessly without any comback. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Using a talk page to discuss an article is not grounds to topic ban an editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is when it is disruptive. There are plenty of cases of topic bans being handed out mostly on the basis of talk page comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, if it's disruptive. - MrX 16:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support page ban. That's where the persistent disruption is. North8000 has not shifted the consensus in over a year, and is still beating this expired equine. I have nothing to add to the excellent arguments made above, except to concur. fishhead64 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * comment  North has stated that they will take a voluntary break for a year from the article. Let's all just take their word for it and be done until next November or until that word is broken giving fuller reason for the community to take official action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Officially support topic ban per the very eloquent argument made by FiachraByrne above. Very well laid out explanation on what the issues are here with North's actions. Silver  seren C 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban - Seems over the top, but what do I know. Especially since there has been no article page disruption. Can't folks just ignore him on the talk page if they feel he isn't hearing them or whatever the case? At the most, maybe ban from the talk page for a month or something. It seems like North is going to take a voluntary break if not forced to. Good luck to all. --Malerooster (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been huge disruption and the talk page, which is there to address article issues, has not been functional as it's been the North8000 forum driving away any other discussion. Who wants to work in that battleground atmosphere? And their voluntary breaks are perfect until they decide to ignore them. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban per FiachraByrne.--MarchOrDie (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support ban from this article's talk page, which is where almost all the trouble has arisen. I don't hold with voluntary recusals, which have shown themselves several times to be unenforceable. The editor changes their mind and with no community ban in place, there's no block. Plus, not impressed with a voluntary withdrawal which comes after seeing the way the wind is blowing here. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It seems that the main accusation is that North8000 is "disruptively failing to edit the article". Yet it is to his credit that he hasn't engaged in edit warring. He is obviously a minority voice on the page, and as such feels marginalised. But having a minority voice doesn't get in the way of establishing consensus, even if it makes it more difficult. But I have to disclose that, (although things have died down now), I have had a number of run-ins with (some) of the editors involved in this issue, though possibly not the ones to whom North8000 refers. I found some of those editors very difficult to work with, and found myself being unjustly accused of all sorts of things, and so my sympathies lie firmly with him. So it would take a lot more evidence than what is presented here to make me think that North8000 should be banned from the article talk page. StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. "It seems that the main accusation is that North8000 is "disruptively failing to edit the article"" The main problem is that North8000 is holding the article's talkpage hostage with their original research, and claims that have thoroughly rejected by reliable sources. And as being an editor who has had very difficult interactions with you, also on LGBT subjects, I find your vague accusations against "some" unnamed editors equally as offensive as North8000's mysterious cabal trio. Frankly dealing with you and North8000 has left me feeling like Wikipedia isn't worth editing at all for the WP:Battleground mentality and willingness to assume bad faith. In fact the issue seem frighteningly similar: until a proven consensus has backed you into a corner the unceasing rhetoric about activist editors rails on. Meanwhile we insist on reliable sources to seek the changes being insisted on. Verifiability is a core principle, there is nothing wrong with insisting sources be presented for exceptional claims. Insomesia (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, well "some people" includes you, and the accusations of a battleground mentality and the assumption of bad faith are exactly the sort of thing I meant by "unjustly accused of all sorts of things". So naturally it appears to me that you and other editors are trying to silence someone with whom you disagree. StAnselm (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is the bad faith in repeatedly asking someone to provide sources to support their position when they failed to provide them the last time you asked? While you could assume good faith once or twice that some exist and are going to be brought forth; after 6 months, there is no reason to continue assuming. AGF is not a suicide pact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are going to attack other editors, provide diffs at a minimum. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've read through most of the past year's archive. North8000's stated motivation on the page is to oppose the "persecution that homosexual activists in the US have promulgated," including "defining [opponent's] beliefs as 'phobic'." Which in itself is fine - if an editor in good faith perceives that to be a POV flaw in the article, it makes sense to pursue its correction. I don't agree, but that's what talk pages are for. The problem comes where North repeatedly applies that general view to accuse editors who disagree in good faith of being a "trio" of activists acting in bad faith. Despite a wealth of reliable sources, North doesn't seem willing to consider that anyone could, in good faith, think homophobia refers generally to discrimination against LGBT persons; such a view is always masking a bad faith effort to label such discrimination as a clinical phobia. As North considers accusations of activism against him or her to be personal attacks, but levels them freely and broadly against others, I don't have any particular suggestion as to how this situation should be constructively remedied.--Trystan (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Topic Ban - There's a whole heap of text here, but I find the position TParis puts forth quite in line with my own. I specifically reject FiachraByrne's position that the technical definition of a word ("the literal etymological meaning of the component parts of that compound term") is not important; after all, at the end of the day, this is still The Free Encyclopedia, not urban dictionary.  Also, the diffs provided don't particularly show the accusation in my opinion.  Certainly not indicative of a great time singing campfire songs, but, unfortunately, not particularly far from the norm.  -- No  unique  names  05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Article-Ban Temporarily I haven't personally edited on this article, or any of similarity (even as a gay man myself) because LGBT issues are a VERY political topic, and I tend to avoid such things, but it has got to a point now after reading through a ridiculously STUPENDOUS amount of arguments/opinions/POVs AND this AN/I for this article/talk page that I have to speak my mind on this. The WHOLE thing has been taken WAY outta proportion. All this could have easily been sorted out in a matter of days, if North8000 had done what a numerous amount of editors have pleasantly asked of him/her several times, and that is to provide even a single source to back up what he/she was proposing for the article itself. But he/she has failed on doing that every single time. All he/she has been doing is bringing up the same discussion time and time again, and obviously not listening to what has been asked of him/her. Also, the constant barrages to this so-called 'trio' as being 'Guardians' of the article is un-called for. No-one from what I have gathered has played any such role, they have simply just asked North to provide sources to back up his/her claims. All in all, continually doing that and not providing any kind of source is just being disruptive. I have seen that North has said he/she would gladly take a voluntary break from this article/talk page, and I would highly suggest that be a very good idea, as this whole thing has gone on too long now and has wasted the editing time of many editors. However, in saying that, I would support a temporary ban to verify this 'voluntary break' of Norths. If, after that period he/she returns going back to page 1 and starting all over again, I would then go with a total article-ban. If his/her antics continue on other LGBT-related articles, then proceed further with a topic-ban. I say this because I feel an instant article/topic-ban would neglect North8000 in a chance to redeem him/herself on this issue, even though it seems many editors feel he/she has had too many chances already. I only see it fair to give people that chance and hopefully North, I speak to you now, you would act on that and provide even ONE source (i'm sure there is a source out there somewhere to back up your claim) and not continue on with the repetitive, disruptive behavior I feel you have been showing as of late, as I am aware you have done some good work on numerous other articles. I do hope this can be settled once and for all as soon as possible, for everyones sake and sanity, and we can all get back to editing happily –  Blue☆ Stars  83  08:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This repeats one prevalent mis-understanding / tactic which is that the proposed remedy is "adding material" and the corollary of saying that I failed to do that. The main proposed remedies are to rename the article, and to unembed the POV arguments from the header of the talk page. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean the FAQ questions that read neutrally, in line with and including policies, and that were created through consensus just to prevent you from asking the same questions on a daily basis? (Which didn't work). Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban on LGBT topic. It's pretty clear that his participation has not been helpful—in fact it has hindered the project. This should be viewed as a cost/benefit question for Wikipedia. Has his participation in the article helped improve the article? It's pretty clear that if he hadn't participated, the process of building an encyclopedia would have been faster and easier. FurrySings (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban unnecessary disruptive battleground mentality. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban I have personally come accross this user a number of times and each time i have seen either very questionable requests or time-wasting. He appears to have a strong point of view which appears to be outside of the scope which is acceptable on wikipedia and additionally is usually unencyclopedic. I also concur with many of the other supports above me. Pass a Method talk  22:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

North's overview
The beginning of my homepage says "When there is good to be done by taking a some heat, I don't hesitate to put myself on the firing line and do so. Please don't confuse this willingness to endure pain for the good of Wikipedia with being nasty." This does not refer to or involve working for or against particular points of view, it generally refers to situations where where the Wikipedia process is being mis-used to beat up people, or where the the process has been derailed or hijacked, and parrying nastiness (including abuse of the system) against people. Knowing that false accusations and nasty tactics are a common wiki-legal way to beat up people to pursue POV's, for my own sanity, I generally try to limit myself to one article where such a level of nastiness is the case. For better or for worse this has been that article for me.

My involvement at this article has centered on three threads and particularly activated by the last two:


 * 1) A core structural problem which embeds a particular POV deeply in the article. So far the guardians-of-the-status-quo have refused / completely evaded a discussion on the points raised.  But by itself this could and should be just a matter of friendly discussion / friendly disagreement
 * 2) '''A range of mis-use-of-wikipedia and abusive tactics that have been used to chase away the immense number of people who have pointed out the severe POV problem with this article.
 * 3) '''Particularly nasty tactics that have been used against me by two of the people involved. And by "nasty" I don't mean the blatantly-against-policy stuff that gets quickly reined in.   I mean the continuous barrage of baseless accusations of violating policies and guidelines and complete mis-characterizaitons of what I said, and are certainly big attacks if the target who takes seriously trying to do things properly in Wikipedia.

Without getting into the specifics of the debates, an understanding of the structural side of them is essential context for the above accusations. At the core of this is a statement that there are TWO common definitions of "homophobia". I have (right or wrong) considered the following to be sky-is-blue-obvious / stipulated and nobody has disputed it:

Definition #1 What I have been calling the "phobia is phobia" definition. (e.g. "irrational fear") This is the one that is in ALL of the dictionaries and I believe is undisputed as been A definition Definition #2 What I have been calling the "all opposition is phobia" definition. This is also widely used, and also often controversial. This brands all opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of it as being a phobia, including that imbued by upbringing, religious doctrine, tradition, culture etc..

BTW, since some of the original allegations implied a certain POV of mine (which is opposite to my actual) although it should be irrelevant to articles, it now needs mentioning. I said most of it in one recent post on the article talk page which was: "As a preface, 99% of the time I am in conflict with Rivertorch regarding this nightmare POV of an article, which is a witchunt promulgation of the controversial characterization of any opposition to homosexuality as a "phobia". But, regarding the "lifestyle" question, I must side with Rivertorch. I believe that the body of evidence indicates that homosexuality is an embedded attribute, which is much more than a lifestyle. IMHO folks with that attribute should able to lead good normal lives without hostility. Articles that promote the POV of villainizing (rather than a dialog with) people who believe otherwise (such as this POV mess of an article does) are delaying the day when that can happen. Sorry for the soapbox. Sincerely, North8000" To that I would add being in favor of full societal normalization. One of my opponents at this article subsequently barnstered me for assistance an a different LGBT article; the work was clear-cut for me; it did not have the structural POV problems of this one.

Back to the structural side (thread #1), the gist of my statement is that structurally the bulk of the article is structured to assert, in the voice of Wikipedia that definition #2 is an uncontroversial definition and that #2 is the ONLY definition. Roughly speaking, this has been via putting the main coverage of ALL forms of opposition to homosexuality, or to the societal normalization of homosexuality under the banner of "homophobia". The important point is is that it is an article-structural and wp:policy-related discussion, which did NOT involve or depend on any challenged assertions. Adding sources material would be completely relevant to the discussion, and I really see no place to even put in new material that is relevant to the discussion. Hence the vague "put in new sourced material" mantra was a diversion, and one used to avoid a discussion on the structural points raised and a tangent/ maneuver used to pretend that I was being unresponsive.

Since the problem is structural, solutions would also be structural. One key point is that this is the main repository for coverage of opposition to homosexuality (or the societal normalization of it) in general The most graceful, complete and universal proposed solution would be to rename the article to a more neutral title along the lines of "opposition to homosexuality"  and then cover the various meanings of "homophobia" as a section within that article, or to create that a a second article and then narrow this one to coverage of the term/concept. A less elegant plan B would be restructuring of this article. The point being is that saying "just start adding to this article or shut up" is an irrelevant tangent, not a reasonable offer.

Now on to thread #2. Since the day of its inception, an immense amount of people have raised an immense amount of well-reasoned concerns regarding the POV problems with this article. (plus, of course, some others which were more just "vents" ) The guardians have used a range of tactics to chase these people away. One of the more brazen ones is that they have embedded their POV argument (and a straw-man misstatement of the common complaint about this article) into the header of the article as authoritative-looking "FAQ's" and then essentially tell the people that raise concerns "you must have forgotten to read the FAQ's". When one of those people weighs in with a good argument, I generally try to support/defend them against the onslaught / beating that such folks are generally given by the guardians. I also see encouraging more participation / more eyes on the article as a part of the long term fix, and avoiding them being chased off being a help in that area. In a good indicator of the reception given these folks, the above complaint has characterized all well-reasoned and civilized arguments by others that I have supported as always being a "troll or an SPA".

Now on to thread #3. Two of the folks involved have subjected me to a continuous barrage of false (explicit and implicit) accusations, complete mis-statemetns and of mis-characterizations what I said. It is an unfortunate fact of life that these are often believed if not refuted, which has forced many threads to be needlessly long and painful. My responses have always been on a high plane. The real response to this should be a boomerang.

I've already spent over an hour on this before even putting in the available 100's of supporting diffs.

Finally, possibly most resolving, my LAST post at the article was a full 16 hours before the ANI report and said:


 * "Perhaps asserting a bunch of false accusations, insults and attacks as facts as you just did is not the best way to truly try to end an unpleasant exchange. I will try to do something different than that. While the calls to "add sourced material" have been somewhat of a diversion from the actual fixes needed, upon a closer review I can see a way that such could be a next step. I am redirecting myself to make that my next post in the pages of this article unless someone feels the need to again explicitly or implicitly do what I described at the beginning of this post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)"

And IMO the response was apparently "Holy crap, North just agreed to do EXACTLY as we asked - trouble in river city - we'd better do something! and then 16 hours later filed a ANI which pretended that that didn't happen. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply

 * 1) We know you disagree with the title/structure, but you only need to say that once (or a few times) before you seek dispute resolution; 2) We know you all have POVs (we presume you are all human). 3) You have a disagreement about what is NPOV (and what is article title policy compliant), you need to come to a consensus on that and accept when consensus is against you on that (try dispute resolution). 4) Talk pages are not well used for philosophical discussion, and repeated philosophical discussion becomes disruptive, it is best to talk sources. 5) When someone does not bring sources to the table at the outset, it makes it look like soap-boxing or dilettantism on the subject (e.g., "Why doesn't this article represent how I see the world? Why is everyone in a conspiracy against it?" is not a very useful discussion starter, and maybe pursued disruptively). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still concerned by "the trio" or "guardians of the status-quo" accusations. Can you name these people since i want to know if that vague attack is at me or not? Just because people disagree with your opinion i don't see how you earn the right to accuse them of being a collaborating group against you. Name them please North. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to Alanscotterwalker, you seem to have the impression that I have been conducting an intense ongoing debate on the core question.   Please take a look at the ENTIRE current talk page (which goes back to October 4th) and you will see that that is not the case. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenova20 that question includes so many false premises that it is impossible to answer. But you are certainly in the top 1 or 2 regarding the baseless insults, accusations and mis-characterizations against me which have drawn out what could be brief friendly exchanges into longer painful ones. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Cavarrone, good idea. There are plenty of less painful articles to work on. I'd be happy to voluntarily avoid the article for at least a year strictly to reduce my own stress level. If there are any hints of involuntary, not. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * North - can we tackle once and for all the issue of breaking a word down into its etymological roots to argue a point. I've tried to discuss this with you more than once before, but seemingly got nowhere. Your approach just doesn't work for the English language. As I said above more than once, an equivalent argument to yours would be to argue that this Noticeboard is wrongly named because it's not written on a flat piece of wood, as would be implied by the "board" part of the word. You may find it a silly, trivial example, and in a way, it's meant to be. It's meant to be a very simple example of the fact that English words mean what they mean, today, in their entirety, as used by the bulk of the English speaking population around the world. They do not mean what the sum of their etymological roots once meant. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that Webster defines "homophobia" as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." . So discrimination is included. Note that "fear of" is listed first. So, who should we believe? You? Or Webster? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As an Australian, I don't have much use for Webster, apart from when I try to understand the strangely spelt language Americans speak. But I wasn't actually discussing dictionary definitions. I was speaking of the falseness of the approach of breaking down a word into its etymological roots in order to prove its current meaning. It doesn't work. It should never be mentioned again. Discussing dictionary definitions could add something to this discussion. But I wasn't doing that. That you responded to a point I made by discussing something unrelated (in good faith, I'm sure) shows the difficulty of this whole process. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you want to read so much into the order of the words, Bugs. Bear in mind that the word is in use and given definitions in places other than dictionaries. The UK Government's Crown Prosecution Service goes for "a dislike of LGBT people or aspects of their perceived lifestyle" in its Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Homophobic Crime. William Avery (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Going by that definition, 1) 90% of human culture in the past several millennium is described by them as "homophobia" or "heterosexism", 2) 90% of world religions are described by them as "homophobia" or "heterosexism", 3) They even talk about "state sponsored homophobia" which underscores the point that this is all indeed nothing other than political rhetoric, because many other governments do not share the United Kingdom's perspective on this. The question ought to be "why is wikipedia taking a political stance in support of certain governments against others in this controversy. North's point seems to have been that the article definition is not NPOV.  If I or another user were to place a friendly  at the top, would it not be immediately reverted by the article's "keepers" who don't want it to be nominated for one, and don't want the article's POV to be scruutinized? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on wether you actually bothered checking the article history before making that point. North's accused me of controlling the article. Now try actually looking at how many edits i've made there and how many times i've told North to edit the article. You'll clearly be surprised as your statement implies you don't know what's going on here in the first place. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 00:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No shit Sherlock! Fucking tell *me* about it, having to run about and fuck women to look like a "real man". My question is where can the "dislike of LGBT people or aspects of their perceived lifestyle" article be placed? Does Wikipedia acknowledge that there is a requirement for such an article, orthogonal with racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc? William Avery (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? Who says a "real man" is some kind of stud or playboy (I mean that as a serious sociological question), and who doesn't? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can hardly believe you would be such an idiotic knob that you fail to realise from my comment that I've 'moved on'. William Avery (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Moved on', eh. Well, perhaps if you'd been more wary, you'd have ended up in a happier state. But at any rate, cheers for all the personal attacks, foul language and gratuitous insults, it's editors like you that truly make WP a memorable place for millions! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a political term, purposely abusing the real meaning to put a POV-pushing twist on it. Like the ballplayer who had a Spanish-language gay slur in his eyeblack at some point this past summer. It was a joke term that Spanish-speakers use to rib each other... and was tagged "homophobic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * provide reliable sources to support your claim that the widely used meaning as used by many many many reliable sources is "wrong" - thats the same unsubstantiated extraordinary claim that North has been making and not providing any sources to back up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red Pen and Hilo48, your recent posts mis-fire / do not relate to the discussion at hand.  I was not arguing that the the "all opposition is phobia" definition is wrong or does not exist, I was arguing that the other "phobia is phobia" definition also exists, and that the structure of the article pretends that it does not. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At some point you just have to give up. You and I are right, and the others are wrong. But they have consensus and "common usage" on their side, and you can't win the fight. So rather than being banned, you'd be best off to take it off your watchlist and focus on something safe, like Edelweiss. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As a sidebar, it's interesting that people fight like hell to brand all differing opinions as "homophobia" specifically because it identifies it as a "phobia", and then when the usage is challenged that take cover by reversing and saying that homophobia doesn't mean phobia. But either way, per above I already took your advice, as I said:
 * "Responding to Cavarrone, good idea. There are plenty of less painful articles to work on. I'd be happy to voluntarily avoid the article for at least a year strictly to reduce my own stress level. If there are any hints of involuntary, not."
 * North8000 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North, after seeing your work on the Straight pride and homophobia talk pages, i'd still push for a topic ban on anything related to a conflict between heterosexuality and LGBT as you show a bias.
 * If voluntary evasion of the article to reduce your stress is an option then i find it even worse that it had to go this far for you to see how much trouble you've caused everyone else and it seems like you're just trying to punish yourself to avoid a community punishment.
 * I still like how you earlier mentioned me as one of your "trio" though but left out any mention of my edits to the article itself. How can you accuse me of controlling the article yet not even count how many edits i've made to it or look at how long ago they were? Or leave out the mention of me telling you to edit the article yourself so many times? That's quite deceptive isn't it? Was your entire counterargument based on deception?
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That such a complete mis-represtation in such a multitude of ways that its impossible to respond to. North8000 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not, you're just trying to avoid the question. Were you or were you not told multiple times to edit the article yourself? For that matter, were you or were you not told multiple times to present references to back up your argument? Silver seren C 01:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my summary which already answered that that was a diversion given the nature of the problem, and that there was no challenged claims or material to reference.

Now I'm going to call Jenova20on one big BS that they just put out there, which is implying that there were issues with my work and posts at the Straight pride article. My entire work there is a few low key posts and additions of material. IMO you are hoping that people won't check and believe your mis-representation. So, what specifically is your claim of what was a problem there? North8000 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "nature of the problem" is that you dislike the term homophobia, because it sounds like people are afraid of homosexuals. And you would prefer that the article was moved to a title that didn't use phobia in it. Failing that, you want to make sure that the article primarily discusses fear of homosexuals or at least that literal definition of it.


 * The problem is that the etymological meaning of the term homophobia is irrelevant. What the article is documenting is how it is actually used in the world. Sure, the article documents its etymological origins as well, but since the term is only very rarely used in the literal meaning, at least as documented in reliable sources, the article doesn't focus unduly on that.


 * The main point is that, if you want the article to have a different focus, then you need to present the sources to show that a different focus is indeed common and not a violation of WP:UNDUE. This is something that you haven't done, even when asked to do so multiple times by various editors. Silver  seren C 02:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I really think answers to my question, posed above, would be useful. Is there is a requirement an article on "dislike of LGBT people or aspects of their perceived lifestyle", orthogonal with racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc? Then we could argue about what it should be called. William Avery (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While trying to answer that question just now I ran across this, at first glance it doesn't seem half as bad as the other one: Societal attitudes toward homosexuality Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few questions to ask North8000 in hopes to better understand his POV on all this, because sometimes people have difficulty explaining things in a way I can easily understand.
 * Do you merely want homophobia as defined as an actual phobia to be included in the article, or do you want the entire article to observe this POV (seeing it as the "real" definition of the word)?
 * No, if I stayed, my recommended fix would be to rename the article to "Opposition to homosexuality".  And then it would have a significant section on the "homophbia" term, which would include BOTH definitions. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What obstacles prevent you from making bold edits to the article in an attempt to fix the problem you perceive?
 * The most severe problems are the tactics of the guards, and that was the focus of my efforts. I saw the main first edit there needed as deletion of enshrinement of their argument in the header as "FAQ". Maybe I should have tried that edit. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to accept consensus, even if it contradicts what you think is best for Wikipedia, both in the context of this article and in general?
 * Yes, certainly. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * '''Do you still assert that you have been obstructed or suppressed by a small number of POV-pushing editors (an aforementioned trio)?
 * There are so many serious errors in that wording that I'll keep it short to the literal answer to the literal question.  No, I never said that and am not saying that. What I did say in that general area in my overview above.  North8000 (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If so, will you call out these editors by name so that their behavior can be objectively investigated?
 * See answer to previous question. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the ideal outcome of this discussion in your opinion? What do you want from this community?
 * The semi-ideal and realistic answer would be to simply close this as it is now moot. The ideal answer would be to analyze, sanction and stop the intimidation activities of the guards so that more people will stay at the article so that it can eventually get fixed. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have your views on this issue changed in any way over the past year?
 * In the area that I'm passionate about (the intimidation and chasing-away-editors tactics of the guards) my views have been confirmed and reinforced. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes this issue so important to you that you have been willing to stay with it for so long?
 * It is not that important. If you will review it closely, you'll see that my intent and pattern was just brief occasional posts supporting other editors and briefly occasionally saying that the problem exists. Then I keep getting lured in deeper by carrots and sticks.  Carrots when it looks like someone really wants a proposal,  sticks when the nastier of the guards start hurling false accusations and mis-characetizations that require a response. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you admit to having any bias in relation to this topic?
 * Outside views are irrelevant, but on the underlying topic, (societal acceptance and normalization of homosexuality) my bias is ON THE SIDE OF the people who have been attacking me. On the topic of tactics, my bias is on the side of saying that branding everybody who feels the opposite of me as having a "phobia" is not right.  But again, we check those at the door when we put on our editor hats. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that you have any chance of convincing other editors that your POV is correct?
 * The question has a false implied premise that convincing somebody of a particular POV (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) is my goal. It is not. On some of the individual topics (e.g. tactics of the guards, structural problems) if I stayed with the article and put some sunlight on those issues I think it would be easy to convince impartial folks. The 2-3 most zealous of the guards will never be convinced. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your responses to these questions will improve my (and other editors) understanding of your arguments, and may help us see your side of things as a whole. I think there may be a little more truth that's as yet unrevealed, but since nobody seems to on your side, that's for you to demonstrate. Coppaar ( talk ) 03:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. We're getting seriously off-track again. This is ANI—not a good place for content discussions. For many months, content discussion has been happening at Talk:Homophobia, where North8000 has presented the same arguments repeatedly. Discussion has also occurred at WP:NPOVN and, at considerable length, at User talk:North8000. North8000 has been free to initiate an RfC and has failed to do so. He has been asked by multiple editors to provide reliable sources to support his contentions and has failed to do so. This ground has already been covered numerous times—read the archives, for god's sake—and there is absolutely no reason to be rehashing this stuff here and now. There is an open proposal to ban an editor with extreme WP:IDHT issues from a single talk page of the English Wikipedia—not a big deal, not worthy of its own ANI subpage and 116 KB of redundant questions, disparagement of minority editors, ignorant twaddle about "Webster" . . . not worthy of one more minute of anyone's time. Rivertorch (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why people are dancing around the facts. We know for a fact that North8000 and those who oppose his article/topic ban are explicitly pushing their own religious POV.  End of story. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind other editors. With regard to North8000, I certainly don't know that he's pushing a religious POV. Can you provide evidence? In any event, it's his behavior on a particular talk page that's in question, and I couldn't care less what motivates it; I just want it to stop. Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say, I don't know whether User:Viriditas is being ironic or not. If Viriditas isn't being ironic, it's a sad indictment on wikipedia that people can make such wild accusations and get away with it. StAnselm (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly, wild accusations are unexceptional at ANI. (Did you see the outrageous denigration of LGBT editors earlier in the thread?) There's a proposal on the table, and anything else is extraneous. Page-banning North8000 will solve the problem and close the book on this sorry mess. We can always come back if, god forbid, the same problem erupts at another talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no relationship between homophobia and religion. None whatsoever. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I say anything implying that? I did not. How did we get from proposing a solution to one editor's persistent disruption at a talk page to a discussion of religiously-motivated bigotry? Your post was not germane and was serving to create more heat than light. This is one more example of the reason why I rarely participate at ANI. Rivertorch (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, if you haven't already seen the archives of talk:straight pride you'll see North did a lot of the same tricks there early on. He has a POV issue with articles dealing between conflict between LGBT and heterosexuals, and that's why ideally i'd like a topic ban on just that area for him since he hasn't earned what the policies were that were used against him and still doesn't (as we've cited a lot of them and more on talk:homophobia). Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenova, I think it would be most productive to narrow the focus of this discussion as much as possible. Assuming there isn't a current, ongoing problem at that other talk page, that is (and no, I haven't checked whether there is). Rivertorch (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And North, "my bias is ON THE SIDE OF the people who have been attacking me", that's the strangest shittest reply i expected from you and doesn't make sense. Were you on the side of the consensus then we wouldn't be here and you would have provided at least one citation in 6 months after our discussions. No one has attacked you, but you have made a lot of accusations to people including me, calling us guardians and a trio controlling the article, when in fact you have been causing a nuisance and attacking us for attention, rather than edit the article and discuss the changes!
 * To refute this with the evidence against you is a joke. You're a liar plain and simple.
 * ...And before you claim that i have misrepresented your statements again despite them being quotes from you, how about you actually address these concerns in a reply in good faith.
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You just mis-stated another one, you just said that my response "but on the underlying topic, (societal acceptance and normalization of homosexuality) my bias is ON THE SIDE OF the people who have been attacking me." is the "shittiest" reply and is refuted by the fact that I did not agree with you on the other issues with the article and talk page.  Those two aren't even related. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dissection of a myth
Some folks have been trying to leave an impression that I have been pursuing a hot and heavy debate of etymology of the word. Lets look at my posts from the entire talk page (I just undid today's archiving) which goes back to October 3rd, plus I went back two more weeks before that (the next one even before that also had no posts but I didn't list it)

Week 1
 * No posts

Week 2
 * No posts

Week 3
 * October 4th Make a comment agreeing with the guards on the topic at hand, and made a side comment that the article has other big problems.

Week 4
 * No posts

Week 5
 * No Posts

Week 6
 * October 28th  Friendly brief side comment on a discussion unrelated to the issues of the article

Week 7
 * No posts

Week 8
 * November 8th 3 brief posts in a discussion with a new poster. Ended with me criticizing the embedding of the one side of the argument into the header as "FAQ's"
 * November 11th Brief post that Black Kites post is proving something that we all already accept but is not on the topic at hand.
 * November 13th Comment disagreeing a proposal to quickly hat any future posts from anybody who raises the issues again

Week 9
 * November 15th Brief post pointing that the "adding material" idea is not the solution to a structural problem.
 * November 15th Responding (high road) solely to  Dominus Vobisdu's post which was solely (otherwise-content-free) an attack on me.
 * November 16th Post agreeing with the guards' request, and 16 hours later the ANI was posted. Hence my comment "Oh crap, he agreed with us, we better do something!"
 * November 17th  Added missing mention of the ANI.     Invites were sent to about 20 individual editors, but notice was not put on the page itself.

OK, where is the continuous debate on semantics / entomology / the word? Actually, where is there an ANI-grade problem of ANY type in the above? North8000 (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm, you do know there are archives to that page, right? The posts from you began just short of a year ago and are there for all too see. (Someone recently made adjustments to the archiving instructions, and MiszaBot has been mighty busy.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Added: I have warded off the bot] until this discussion is closed. Rivertorch (talk)


 * Yes, this is ALL of my edits to the article (zero) and article talk page for the last 9 weeks. So where is the "incident"?   North8000 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No one has taken issue with your edits to the article, and no one (except you) has focused on your talk page edits over the last nine weeks. Your edits to the talk page over the past year are at issue; they comprise an ongoing "incident". Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is no specific violation but just a general grudge against his input extending over a year, it makes zero sense to penalize him. How is one to know where exactly he broke the "rules" to avoid doing it again, as any kind of remedy? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Have you read the complaint and followed the links? The rules (scare quotes unneeded) are codified in a behavioral guideline, and their violations took place over many threads and many months. I doubt that the Wikipedia community would ever agree about the precise point at which one should stop beating a poor dead horse, but surely we can find consensus that such acts do become disruptive at some point and must stop. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So: *No* specific infraction, only so vaguely defined a grey area 'at some point' that presumably anyone can be clamped down on 'by consensus' for opposing your opinions. What I figured. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, specific infraction. It occured cumulatively, over the course of months, not in a vacuum. Does that make sense or do you think disruption happens only in discrete episodes? Should we remove the part about IDHT in the disruptive-editing guideline and nominate WP:STICK for deletion? Rivertorch (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In order for all future editors to avoid the same consequences, a clear line needs to be drawn - one where it can be said 'you crossed the line on such and such a calendar date' - none of this nebulous 'whenever we get tired of seeing your opinion' stuff which only serves double standards to restrict opposition while holding your friends to a lower standard. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rivertorch, that clearly is not what ANI is about or suitable for and with good reason.  Take the deceptive/manilupalitave opening complaint for example.  Building a "picture" by compiling selected diffs out of context selected from a years worth of edits and trying to get people who no way are taking the time to look through the year for themselves (in contrast to an actual incident situation where this is feasible) to "pile on" based on that mis-representaiton.    North8000 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, ANI is often used to discuss ongoing problems, not isolated incidents. But if you'd prefer this to be at WP:AN instead, I personally would have no objection. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If this wasn't already moot, the only venue suitable for dissecting such a wide-ranging construction is arbcom.  Once it is reviewed closely, a boomerang against the other nastier folks (not you) is the most likely result.  North8000 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so. Arbcom is suitable for intractable disputes where community consensus has failed to resolve a problem; it is not a substitute for seeking community consensus in the first place. If I had filed this, I probably would have gone with RFC/U (with misgivings, because that can get even messier than ANI) or AN, but at this point I don't think the venue much matters. The community is now aware of the alleged problem, and I'm hoping to see this thread closed with a useful result before much more time goes by. As far as what you call "nastiness" goes, I've seen some sub-optimal word choice from you and from others, and none of it would have happened if you had simply dropped the stick months ago. Rivertorch (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"While one can search for dozens of antique definitions and usages to cloud the issue, or seek to hijack, dilute, discredit or otherwise get rid of the term due to it being a useful tool used mostly by persons of conservative political persuasion, Wikipedia should not be a venue for such efforts.
 * Comment. For the record North8000 has displayed a similar edit pattern at Talk:Intelligent design. He/she has edited the article Intelligent design 8 times (all barring one of which sought to link the meaning of the term "intelligent design" to its first appearance in the mid-19th century; a position which the sources do not support      ) but made 210 edits to the talk page from 6 November 2011 until the 16 September 2012. The edit pattern was one of periodic rather than day-to-day engagement. By no means could all the edits be described as disruptive. However, there was clear, if not necessarily conscious, point of view pushing and the pursuit of arguments without supporting sources to the point of tendentiousness and redundancy. As North8000 declares himself/herself supportive of the "societal normalization of homosexuality [paraphrasing]" so she/he proclaimed her/himself "a 100% evolution & natural selection person" that does not "believe in I.D."; his/her position was that the term intelligent design was being used inappropriately in the article in referring only to the version promulgated by the Discovery Institute;  by March of this year and having failed to produce reliable sources to support his/her position (that there is a form of ID either distinct from that of the DI or the teleological argument) she/he was accused of flogging a dead horse, etc.; and similarly, beating a dead horse; by September of this year he/she was alleging that there were structural problems with the article in that the article did not follow the common meaning of the term "intelligent design" and that a "group" of editors were "guarding" the article who "shouted" them "away" with "bogus non-germane chants"; he/she then formulated more detailed criticism of the article (principally focused again on the purported common usage of the term); she/he was then asked by the other page editors to drop the stick, stop wasting everyone's time and they clarified that the article was about a topic not a phrase; Professor Marginalia, ever polite and patient, took the time to explain to North8000 the principal behind article naming policy where terms may also have archaic meanings; as North8000 was unsuccessful in changing the article (due to the absence of supporting reliable sources) he/she made reference to a "trio" on that page "flinging crap" at him/her and "avoiding the core topics". I'm not sure at what point such exchanges become disruptive but, lacking a sustainable argument derived from reliable sources yet pursuing said argument, if episodically, over an extended period of time is hardly a profitable use of everyone's time. I also think it might be instructive to view North8000's comments at the talk page of the "Political correctness" article on the proper interpretation of that term for the purposes of wikipedia where, more than three years ago, he/she wrote:

It's real meaning is defined by it's common usage!! Which is that it is a term (used by persons of a more conservative political persuasion) to disparagingly refer to a sort of "rule book" generally "written" by persons of liberal political persuasion.

Come on, you all know that it really means the above! Why not just say that with a neutral wording, including it's context/ usage? By Wikipedia guidelines, this could be so simple!! I took a try at a first sentence of such:

'The most common meaning here is a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular political sensibilities at the expense of other considerations, and carried to the extent of dis-allowing other reasonable viewpoints.'"


 * I think this is instructive for two reasons. It shows consistency in his/her belief that terms such as "homophobic" and "politically correct" are pejorative terms applied to one's political/social/moral enemies (a similar stance is also evident in his/her interpretation of the "intelligent design" article) and that they should be characterised as such on wikipedia articles. However, there's a selectivity here in advancing an argument about how one term should be understood in terms of its common usage rather than archaic meanings ("politically correct") while pursuing the exact opposite argument for other terms ("intelligent design" and "homophobic"). I also think that there's a problem in this type of talk page engagement which, while not requiring character assassination, might be recognised by North8000 as non-productive. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Til Eulenspiegel's reasoning and conclusion above. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think FiachraByrne brings an interesting and useful perspective to the table, suggesting that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But as Til noted, there is no clear line that North has crossed.  I suggest the best outcome for this ANI is to draw a clear line for North, and to specify the consequences if it is crossed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

On the road to nowhere
Are we there yet? I've been on the edge of this issue for many months now. Frankly, I see no progress. Can anyone outline a pathway that will definitely take us somewhere? (Please don't respond to this question by discussing something else. That's the big problem here.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a community consensus deciding if the article should be moved to Opposition to homosexuality (among other changes) is the best option. Zaalbar (talk)

we take North up on his voluntary self removal from the article for a year and we all go home. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But then what will NE Ent do? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't stop others from taking up the crusade and that'll still leave us where we started in a year. If the regularly proposed changes to Homophobia is definitively decided then a lovely notice can be added to the top of the talk page that links to the consensus. Zaalbar (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * this ANI is about North and not other editors or the article in particular. if you wish to deal with something else, that would be a different forum. and if North comes back in a year and his behavior causes problems then that will certainly say something about North, but i am sure that will not be the case. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the consensus truly is against North8000, and he's a driving force for the neverending arguments on Homophobia, then we shouldn't need to be concerned about other users taking his place. If they do, we'll have to find another solution. It's also possible that North8000 could simply make disruptive posts on other talk pages, which seems possible considering |31.65|2.38|7.26|14.83|17.12&chdl=Article|Talk|User|User%20talk|Wikipedia|Wikipedia%20talk&chco=FF5555|55FF55|FFFF55|FF55FF|5555FF|55FFFF&chtt=Namespace+Totals&chf=bg,s,00000000 how "involved" he seems to be in article talk pages already. At this point though, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and ask for a voluntary article talk page ban, with the understanding that he'll be on probation unofficially. It's an acceptable solution as long as he understands that the same behavior on other pages would be equally intolerable, and that he should probably focus on articles and building the encyclopedia. Coppaar  ( talk ) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support North's voluntary removal from the article with the understanding of unofficial conditions as Coppaar has outlined above. It's better all round than an official sanction if it can achieve the same effect. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I may agree with Zaalbar here. I think that most of the editors involved in this discussion are overly biased at this point, simply from being involved in the fight for far too long. Looking at the support/opposition for the ANI, as well as a few of the comments, it seems that North8000 is not alone in his views, and this disagreement has come to public light. Honestly, I think there's enough questions regarding the conduct that has been carried out on the talk page, as well as the contect of the actual page. As a user who's been involved in the discussions, I have to say that in a perfect wikiworld, this will boomerang. If North's actions are being questioned, then it's doubtless that others should be brought forth, as well. Additionally, we have yet to reach the consensus that his behavior is inappropriate. If what he's claiming is true, then he clearly has a right to have pushed the issue as he did. So, a vote on the renaming of the article is in place? Or is that going to be stonewalled as well? —Maktesh (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If/when it does happen, it won't be here. We try to avoid arguing about content on AN/I, so the focus is on what (if anything) is to be done about the user/users in question. In my mind, there isn't much question that North8000 is being disruptive, which is why I support a talk page ban (though I think making it officially enforced would just be holding a WP:GRUDGE). He's been combative from the start, and he's made accusations against other editors instead of making his own arguments. When people call him out, his response seems to always be that they're misrepresenting his view (which he then fails altogether to clarify for them). Nevertheless, I'm perfectly willing to let him get off with a slap on the wrist if he can just drop the matter and move on with his life. Let's hope that's the way it works out: enough time and effort has been wasted already. Coppaar  ( talk ) 01:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I could believe that he could just walk away, but I just don't think it's possible based on past experience:
 * Exited, then returned 3 days later
 * This time he left for 13 weeks
 * "I'm not going to respond to that nastiness. The next step is me to find sources for the obvious." ...responded the next day (without sources)
 * This time he signed off, and came back less than 8 hours later
 * In response to a request to "post the most-in-need sentences here that you feel are unsourced?" "Happy to. I'm a bit hurried at the moment, but I will."
 * "I'm going to fade out..." (came back in less than 3 weeks)
 * "Same old tactics. Signing off."
 * "I'm signing off on this thread." (this time it lasted for less than a day)
 * "I realized that even responding on each new mis-representation would make this a perpetual thread so I'm going to break that cycle." (Came back less than 14 hours later)
 * "I'm signing off on this thread." (Until tomorrow, that is.)
 * Does anyone else see a pattern here? - MrX 02:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What you just did was very deceptive.   You took a bunch of cases where I did EXACTLY what I said what I was going to do (end participation in a thread) and made a construction and statement that implies the exact opposite. And note that you also created the construction that started this ANI. North8000 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are being deceptive and these diffs bear that out. Your statements weren't always just about leaving a thread but leaving the entire article. The first example you promise to not return until a much later date which turned out to be 3 days later. This deception, purposeful or not, is also in keeping with your assurance, several times, that you would present reliable sources to back up the changes you sought. These reliable sources were promised multiple times and were sought by multiple editors. And they never appeared. Your intent may have been to do the research and present reliable sources, it simply has never happened. Your intent may have been to drop the stick, but you have yet to do that. I'm sorry but assuming good faith after many false statements - however they were intended or earnest they may have been - is no longer a viable option with you in this area. You have shown a pattern of similar behavior on other LGBT articles and have a history of tendentious editing, at least on talk pages if not actual articles. Your editing has exhausted the patience of many editors and that is the only reason this page exists. No one is that interested in getting you personally but given the pattern it seems painfully obvious you will continue until stopped in one way or another. Hopefully you'll accept this painful criticism as a community standing up for civility and respect for collegial editing. I don't believe anyone wants to silence you but I do believe people want the editing process here to be cooperative and abide by consensus, and that includes listening when others simply disagree with what you believe to be true. Insomesia (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider nearly your whole post to be inaccurate and misleading. Rather than get baited deeper in as I did before, I'm going to leave it at that. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's deceptive to post your quoted statements and the diffs to provide context to your quotes. For example, in #3, can you provide a diff showing that you "found sources for the obvious", or were you expecting someone else to take that next step? Or in #5, when you said "you will" in response to Insomesia's request for you to "post the most-in-need sentences here that you feel are unsourced." You did find the time to make additional talk page posts after that, but you simply didn't take the action that you said you would to improve the article. You didn't do the research and you didn't do the editing.


 * The point of this ANI is not the underlying content issue. You were politely asked on several occasions to follow Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, rather than simply positing your theories on the talk page. You failed to bring forth any sources. You were warned not to use the talk page as a forum, repeating the same arguments over and over. You rejected those warnings.


 * I'm concerned that you do not see this as a problem, and seem only to accept the possibility of disengaging from the talk page voluntarily, equivocally and on your terms. I'm sorry, but that seems like a disingenuous plea made under the weight of a potential topic or article ban. - MrX 13:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no related articles that I know of that have such structural problems. And that, in synergy with the behavior of the guards, is ALL that this is about. My word is good, and that is that I'd be happy to leave the article (including its talk page) completely for a year, as long as it is 100% voluntary, a simple pragmatic offer to end this, with no inuendo otherwise. If I went against my word, I would consider that to be a major offense and would deserve to be pilloried for that, and you have my welcome to do so. We have barely begun the true analysis that would be needed to evaluate the claims made against me. For example, this would start with the analysis of the talk page for the entire history that the complaint was cherry-picked and context-removed from which would show that the real consensus of people who weighed in on the talk page is overwhelmingly for a major change (My first guess is about 50 to 10) and it is in fact the guards that have been going against consensus. It would also show an immense amount of personal attacks and false claims against me, which I did not respond to in kind. If there is any other innuendo on this beyond just being a quick pragmatic offer by me to end this, then I'm not amenable and we have a LOT more work to do here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi North. Can I ask if you came across another page which to your mind had the same "structural problems" would your talk-page behaviour be the same? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

So, are we there yet? HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to FiachraByrne, what makes the difference is not structural problems but particular types of improper "guard" actions. (The structural note was more responding to a comment falsely (actually backwards) implying I'd go to similar articles on a POV basis) .    I've been involved in about 50 articles with significant structural problems (one current one is Talk:Right-libertarianism), and none has had the degree of improper guarding actions that this one does (combined with nastiness), and only one had a significant (but lesser) degree of such. Intelligent design has a milder version of the improper-guarding actions and we had some fireworks there. Interestingly, to an even clearer extent, I was butting heads with folks who had  MY POV on the underlying topic, and supporting folks who had the opposite POV of mine on the underlying topic.   As I said, we need to check POV's at the door when we put on our editor hats. I eventually decided to leave when someone finally had a direct intelligent discussion on the topic and made good points which in my mind reduced the net benefit of a fix.
 * On this one, as I said, what I had decided to do was to just make occasional lower key comments, usually just supporting other posters who are getting beat up by the guards with the goal of building more eyes on the article which would inevitably lead to a fix. As indicated I kept getting drawn deeper in by carrots (folks apparently looking for a proposed solution) and sticks (insults and false accusations from the nastier of the guards which needed at least a brief response) If I had this one to do over again I would have certainly sought outside help though the Wikipedia mechanisms much earlier in the process, or else decided that this one is beyond my self-imposed quota of taking heat for the good of Wikipedia....either way, never again like this one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi North. Thanks very much taking the time to reply. It's quite true that when you got a considered and civil reply at Talk:Intelligent design you let things go and stated that you considered the thread closed. I don't quite agree with your evaluation of everything above but, for what's worth, I'm personally satisfied that a voluntary removal from the talk page in question is all that is necessary here. Thanks again. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Analysis
It was suggested above that looking at the actual contributions to the talk page over the past year would be helpful in determining whether there is indeed a trio of editors improperly thwarting a broader consensus to narrow Homophobia's scope from its current broad ambit, which I would describe as "opposition to homosexuality." In short, I don't see any evidence that there is.

I count 30 31 unique editors (including 0 IPs and 1 account with less than 10 lifetime edits) that speak in favour of the current, broad scope. I count 20 19 editors (including 9 IPs and 9 IPs/accounts with 10 or less lifetime edits, one of which is banned) supporting narrowing the scope to something like "fear of LGBT persons". At the very least, 4 of the latter group could be charitably described as "unconstructive" (employing anti-gay slurs) in their approach.

Among established editors, there seems to be a strong consensus for the current, broad scope of the article. An RFC or proposed move to a different title might have made this consensus clearer (and still might have that beneficial effect), which could perhaps have helped avoid the entrenched conflict that has arisen.--Trystan (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you have defined the groups accurately. This is because there are several very different ways to fix it, with the "narrowing" that you described being just one of them. And somebody sayign that there is a serious problem usually does not define the particular fix that they prefer (with just one example being narrowing). (In fact, for the particular proposed fix that you mentioned, even I would side with the guards against it.) So the actual relevant split is:
 * Folks that say that there is a significant problem with the article with respect to this
 * Folks that say that the article is largely OK with respect to this.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My count is the same (30-20) for the split you propose. Perhaps I overstated when I characterized the group as being unified by support of a specific fix; the 20 includes all editors who indicated that the article has a significant scope or POV problem. Out of 56 editors making substantive edits, I only counted 6 that didn't offer a fairly clear opinion on the issue, which is quite remarkable.--Trystan (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Some I'm a part of the 40% who have say that the article has significant problems. And that 40% is even after intimidation by the POV "FAQ" at the top. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't vote here. Quality of argument is what counts. HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but its a quick rough indicator on something that has had no RFC or similar process, and in context of the intimidation embedded in the header. Also enough to show that the allegations of "fringe" were not correct. But an organized advertised RFC, and evaluating the comments as you suggest would be good. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Notices posted elsewhere
So, from what I can see, notices of this have been posted at:
 * 37 individual editor talk pages by the person who made the complaint
 * The LGBT project page
 * later, by me: the article talk page

North8000 (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - It makes sense that 30+ editors might have stumbled on the homophobia talk page in the last 6 months and become involved to some degree in the roundabout. And the LGBT project page is an obvious one since this is a high importance article there (obviously).
 * So what's the reasoning for this section? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the information speaks for itself. But if this goes farther it will need to be posted in other places in order to obtain a better cross-section for input. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it says anything unless you care to elaborate (likely this will result in an accusation).
 * And what other places do you have in mind? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See below.  We'll figure that out in the next phase if applicable. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Time to end it on the on the quick pragmatic basis I offered?
As a quick pragmatic solution, I have said that I'd be happy to stay completely away from the article away for a year, as long as it is understood that it is 100% voluntary with no other inuendos (and that it is the resolution), and given my word that I would do so. (so actually, being a person of my word, I'd be making it involuntary for myself). To really handle the above properly, we have a LOT more work to do, starting with a much more balanced set of notices of this. (for example other projects than just the LGBT project). And a LOT more dissection of the complaint, (extraction of items from a whole year to create a certain impression, one of which I never even said) and analysis who has been doing what over the last year and other items. As I've only made 12 posts TOTAL in the talk page in the last 9 weeks of this "crisis" (see "dissection of a myth" section above) maybe 6 on the topic in contention, this is just pain I was sporadically enduring on behalf of Wikipedia, not a quest. I'm going to wait 24 hours before starting all of that work, and until then offer a blue light special of making it 2 years (same details).... again, only as just as a quick pragmatic resolution. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have said you would edit the article multiple times and never done so.
 * You have said you would leave the talk page multiple times and always returned with the same argument.
 * "so actually, being a person of my word" - you're not, at all, you miss state events and have exaggerated quite a bit, so i for one don't accept that. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to all of that BS and insults except to restate a few obvious things: I never gave my word that I was going to edit that article.....there is a big difference between giving ones word on a very explicit thing and what was essentially a statement of intention to edit the article. And editing an article (especially in the hostile environment at that one) is immensely harder than staying away from it. Plus, as I indicated, editing the article is not one of the main fixes needed. Removing the POV stuff from the header of the  talk page is, as is renaming. splitting of the article.   At least now, with that series of false accusations and insults,  you are giving an example of how I kept getting baited into longer discussions on what I intended to be short comments supporting/protecting other posters. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of such voluntary offers, as they have been tried in the past and going back on them attracts no consequences. But personally I'm willing to go with this, if you're willing to accept that any admin would be justified in blocking you if you broke your word. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  13:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would consider breaking my clearly given word, (as I have given here) to be a serious offense worthy of any and all possible punishment. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's admirably clear. On that basis I have no difficulty supporting the suggestion you make. Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  13:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would oppose a self-enforced article talk page ban, and lean more strongly toward a full topic ban based on North8000's refusal to accept accountability, his similar tendentious involvement in other LGBT articles and a demonstrated failure to follow through on prior commitments. - MrX 13:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is extraordinary - do you really mean this? You would oppose self-enforced article talk page ban, even if there was no consensus to ban him in any other way? Are you saying that if there was no consensus here, you would prefer him to keep on editing the article talk page? StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kim, that would not be enough for me, either. The problem is that North posts to an article that there are some type of vague "problems" with it, and wastes a lot of editor time because he never comes up with a concrete proposal that is based on reliable sources and WP policy. This results in a lot of wasted editor time. He engaged in a similar proracted deadhorse argument on Intelligent design, also about a "definition", as thing he sems obsessed about. This is a perfect example of the posts that are problematic, also about a "definition": []. A binding promise not to make such vague posts, which are unconsrtuctive and indistinguishable from common griping, on this or any other article, would be the very least I could accept. There's nothing in the proposed soution above that would prevent him from continuing his disruptive activity elsewhere, and given that he has done so elsewhere before, it's reasonable to assume that that is exactly what he will do, and based on his history, it would probably be on another LGBT related article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * North needs to just back away from it for awhile, take it off his watch list, etc., to let things chill. I do find it amusing that one of the complaints against him seems to be that he's not edit-warring in the article itself. That's certainly different. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fact that he is not "edit warring" is not one of the complaints. It's that he is disrupting the talk page and not editing the article. - MrX 14:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually "editing the article" as the supposed step not yet taken is a straw man. The next "edits" needed toward the fix are renaming the article, and deleting the intimidating POV from the talk page header.   Are you criticizing me for not just doing those "edits" without further talk? Seems the reverse of the norm. North8000 (talk)

Just for persepctive, MrX, Dominus Vobisdu, Jenova20 and Insomnia are the main "involved" parties in what I consider to be attacking me. Rivertorch has also been deeply involved but in a non-attacking manner. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No less that ten editors on the talk page told you to put a can on it already. Making it seem like a these concerns are shared only by what you consider to be a "trio" of enemies is patently dishonest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about opposing viewpoints, I was talking about what I actually said in the post. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Really North8000? That's a very bold claim to make. Exactly which of my 13 talk page edits do you consider to be attacks against you? - MrX 15:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Take the deal The purpose of dispute resolution should be to come to a consensus which allows as editors to go about editing. North8000 has agreed to cease editing homophobia and talk:homophobia for a year under the proviso it be characterized as a voluntary, good-faith gesture to minimize disruption, while agreeing "I would consider breaking my clearly given word, (as I have given here) to be a serious offense worthy of any and all possible punishment." Since Drmies' count above, I'm counting1 10 more supports, 9 more opposes and 2 agree to voluntary cessation; this would put the total support / oppose at 29 - 19. It's gone on three days, so it's unlikely the community support/opposes will shift very much. which I consider "too close to call," but tending towards insufficient. The result of an actual admin close will of course depends on who closes the discussion and how they weigh each position, but editors wishing North8000 to refrain from contributing to talk page should be aware of the distinct possibility this discussion could wind down with no consensus for any action. 1 Disclaimer: the preceding tally is based on my own personal review and not intended to be definitive; another editor reviewing the comments may come up with different totals, but I'd be surprised if they were terribly different. NE Ent 15:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignore it MrX, the majority of this page is him refuting the evidence against him. And he still thinks he'll manage to rename the article while volunteering to not edit the talk page or article...he's already planning on getting round his self imposed ban to show his bias on the topic and violate WP:Commonname and WP:Activist. He couldn't redefine the word or article as he wanted, so he's going to rename it to a POV title like Opposition to homosexuality.
 * I hope the people still supporting him in spite of what's on show here can see this is in no way neutral. We don't use Opposition to Jews, Opposition to blacks, Opposition to foreigners for good reason. This argument shows only that North would be better suited at Conservapedia.
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenova20, you can't actually know that he's going to do these things. It's an assumption and you might be right or wrong. But let's be clear; I for one would regard moving/renaming as a violation of the self-imposed ban and would block in a heartbeat. There is a danger (noted above) that for lack of an agreement on this modest sanction we will end up with no sanction at all - which is surely not what you want? Don't let the best (in your own mind) be the enemy of the good. Unless you have a specific, more stringent sanction to propose, I strongly suggest a support for what's on the table. <font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D">(Talk)  16:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of Jenova20's viewpoint of North8000's motives, I'd urge her to trust the larger community to recognize any possible future effort to get homophobia renamed as a gaming of his agreement and deal with it if it were to occur. NE Ent 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I support a topic ban or at the least an article ban. Not North's self imposed punishment for however long is deemed appropriate. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Any such move would be obviously controversial and would have to go through WP:RM (and any unilateral move without RM would be justifiably immediately reverted).  This is no reason to ban anyone from anything.  Now, if he repeatedly moves it unilaterally, then you'd have grounds for taking action.  But nothing he has done comes close to any real kind of disruption like that, so far as I can tell.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, just for perspective, MrX, Dominus Vobisdu, Jenova20 and Insomnia are the main involved parties in what I consider to be attacking me. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Close and ignore. For crying out loud, ignore what he posts on the talk page. If you want to discuss an article content issue, start a new section on that. I see no evidence that North disrupts any legitimate attempts to discuss valid content issues on the article. Most of the talk page content is not from North. So how exactly are his posts on the talk page disruptive? Because people can't refrain from responding to what he says? I suggest that's their problem. Taking any action here in terms of banning or even accepting a voluntary ban sure seems like censorship to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * X

If the article is renamed, my offer would apply to the renamed article. If the article were split, my offer applies to both of them. BTW I realized that these is also a structural flaw in my proposed renaming. I would change my recommendation to splitting the article. Move the material related to simple opposition to homosexuality (on religious, tradition, cultural, etc. grounds) to a new article "Opposition to homosexuality" and then make the "Homophobia" article narrowed and focused to the term itself, including all of its meanings, its usage, history etc.. Of course, I would be removing myself from that debate if my quick pragmatic solution offer is what happens. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Three brief things, and then I plan to say no more here.
 * 1) While I'm glad that North8000 doesn't think I've attacked him, I don't believe the four editors he mentions above have attacked him, either. I do believe that a number of comments that North8000 has made about other editors, including some made on this page, are violative of WP:AGF and could legitimately be construed as attacks. This seems hypocritical and doesn't bode well for any talk page where North8000 is active. Truth be told, I've already unwatchlisted a couple of pages where I saw his username because his presence made me wary of becoming involved in discussions there.
 * 2) That some comments in both directions have been less than optimal can be ascribed to the frustratingly repetitive nature of the arguments North8000 has been making, including his refusal to acknowledge that his concerns have been considered and responded to. One of main problems with North8000's behavior has been a refusal to listen, agree to disagree, and move on.
 * 3) Since an administrator has stated the intention of blocking North8000 if he violates the terms of his proposal, it seems like a moot point whether any such agreement is voluntary or involuntary. As to that proposal, I foresee the problem recurring with a vengeance in a year's time, and it wouldn't surprise me to see parallel problems occurring on other pages in the meantime. However, it solves the immediate problem, and that's nothing to be sneezed at. Weak support. Rivertorch (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that's 2 years for the next 15 hours - blue light special. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I had hoped North8000 would have accepted that their editing patterns have been troublesome and disruptive. Instead we are all witness to another page-filling exercise in frustration in hopes that the underlying message is heard - that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and refusal to listen, agree to disagree, and move on (as stated above) is a core part of the consensus process - and accepted as a way to operate from here on out. Not only am I not hearing any responsibility for their actions I'm not really hearing any assurance that this exact pattern won't be repeated on other articles in the LGBT topic area where they also don't see the POV they seek. I have to stay at opposed, still seek topic ban. Other editors should not have to go into battle just to work in a topic area. Insomesia (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So far no evidence has presented that even remotely justifies a topic ban. If North8000 starts exhibiting similar behavior at other articles in  then that can be addressed if/when it occurs.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it has been presented already above. And I've seen a few more instances myself which certainly feels like the same pattern of demanding major changes with no substantive reason to change anything, including a lack of reliable sources to justify changing anything. Insomesia (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what I don't get. Insomesia says: "Other editors should not have to go into battle just to work in a topic area."  Okay, but where is the evidence that North is requiring anyone who wants to work on this article or any other, to battle?  How is North preventing you from editing the article?  How is North preventing you from asking a question or raising an issue about the article on the talk page?   You might be sick and tired of hearing his opinion over and over, but you have no one to blame but yourself for repeatedly reading his posts.  You certainly can't blame him or anyone else for your choice to respond.  Why can't you just ignore his posts and get on with whatever you believe needs doing?  Being sick and tired of hearing an opinion you don't agree with is no reason to ban someone. Most majority opinions start out as minority opinions.  In this particular case it's unlikely for this minority opinion to become the majority consensus, but let's not set a precedent for censoring opinions because they are the minority opinion.  That would be very bad.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless consensus has changed, article talk pages are still not for general discussion of articles' subjects. There are plenty of places on the internet where one can go to talk endlessly about anything. Wikipedia is not one of them. - MrX 21:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This was about the article, not the underlying topic. Plus the core structural discussion was avoided, evaded and flakked, not discussed and settled.  In the next phase here (discussed above) if this gets to that, I'll start with the scores of diffs that prove that assertion.    North8000 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to say, when dubious charges are being flung about, like WP:NOTAFORUM with regard to comments that are clearly about the structure and content of the article in question, and the supposition that the accused will actually move the article without getting consensus approval through the WP:RM process, the credibility of the case against the accused only slips. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify my previous statement: I did not intend to suggest that all of North8000's talk page edits were non-article-improvement-related. My comment was a general response to Born2cycle's concern about censoring opinions, which seems to be slippery slope argument. I apologize to North8000 if my comments seemed to be a personal attack or misrepresentation of the facts. - MrX 01:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No one was doing anything even remotely close to suppressing North8000's opinion. Several editors tried, in vain, to empathize to their POV and sought out sourcing to defend the POV but were unable to easily find anything. The conclusion was that North8000's POV was not a popular or even well-backed one. If reliable source had been produced the discussion would be on how to present them, instead we had to repeat the same discussion with North8000 time and time again. The battleground was that for an entire year seemingly every topic became about "the guardians" (apparently a trio of five now) suppressing North8000's input. Instead of working on the article we entertained North8000's rantings. Insomesia (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But it was your choice to entertain North's rantings rather than work on the article.  It's absurd to punish someone else for something you chose to do. It's not like his comments overwhelmed the discussions there.  His behavior did not make constructive discussion about the article impossible.  The situation never got even close to that, as far as I can tell.  In fact, I find the whole claim of disruption to be entirely baseless. And suppressing North's opinion about how to improve the article is what is being sought here.  I'm most concerned about setting this precedent (or reinforcing it if it has been set previously).   --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually their input overwhelmed all discussion. And after a few rounds editors gave up trying to talk with North8000 and new editors tried in vain to do the same thing. When a POV-pushing anon or IP would show up North8000 would pipe in and foment discussion ... on the same topic that had just been left to die. All substantiative discussion outside of North8000's POV was sacrificed to allow North8000 their soapbox. So, yes, they effectively halted any further discussion besides their own issue(s) and they claimed other posts and quickly turned other threads into the same old arguments which had been thoroughly vetted and dismissed. The idea that anyone is trying to suppress an opinion is absurd. It defies logic firstly as any notable opinions will be readily evident in reliable sources and will be presented in the article, or should be, sooner than later. If any reliable sources supporting North8000's POV was presented they would have been met eagerly, and vetted at the time. They were never presented despite repeated requests and assurances. Likewise if North8000 still feels there is a major problem they can be assigned an intermediary (like an admin versed in reliable sourcing) to edit on their behalf. I would certainly support that. And no one is even entertaining that this is setting a precedent for suppressing opinions. That will never fly. If anything we are reinforcing that POV-pushers who hold a talk page - any talk page - hostage so they can rant and rail about the "problems" that must be fixed while they do nothing to show that any actual problems do exist, are shown the door. We don't have to agree with each other but we do have to follow the core Five pillars including collegial atmosphere for working on articles and with other editors. Insomesia (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The core topic/ argument. (the structural POV problem as I detailed it) was NEVER NEVER discussed much less decided on. The guards completely evaded it, maneuvered to avoid it, (including the false tangent which was to say me adding material was supposedly the next step despite that being completely irrelevant to the structural problem and POV'd header problem,)  and made threats to avoid it,  made attacks to avoid it, went though various types of clever wiki-warfare to void it, but it was NEVER discussed.  I'm ready to start the next phase with analysis, and summary with 100 diffs to prove this.  All of the above in the ANI has so far been on the vague false impression phase. My offer of a quick pragmatic solution remains open for a little longer, after which time it will be time to begin the next much more thorough phase, with much wider input. The four people I listed are using this as just another venue to conduct that battle, and will never be "convinced". After extensive information is available and analyzed, "knowing" replaces the "assuming" in agf. Look at the last ten weeks of the talk page as detailed under "Dissection of a myth"  and tell me where this bogus "crisis" is?  The only "crisis" is that I called their bluff and AGREED with guards, after which I think they said "holy crap!" and then 16 hours later filed this ANI, and such is very telling. Again, the 4 listed folks will never be convinced of anything, and in my view, their posts have no credibility, as they have alleged or implied about about mine and me.  I'm still ready for either the quick pragmatic solution if somebody wants to close this early on that basis,  or ready to move on to the next much more thorough and broadly / diversely notified phase of this ANI; once I have to start all of that work and grief the "quick and pragmatic" will no longer be such.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You were asked, and agreed to, provide reliable sources for the changes you sought. None ever appeared. Multiple variations on your opinions of what needed to change were considered and none ever gained traction. WP:Consensus did not go your way and still hasn't. No one is guarding anything except Wikipedia from WP:Original research which is not allowed. Your quick and pragmatic options so far have added up to a year of wasted time of other editors. But if you feel some further step must be taken I don't se anyone successfully talking you out of it. Insomesia (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mis-leading and evading again. How is a "source" relevant to these fixes:
 * The POV of one side of a dispute should not be embedded into the header of the talk page
 * The headings over material (such as disapproval of homosexuality on grounds of religion, culture, traditionetc.) should not classified based on just one of the two definitions of homophobia,(and in conflict with the other) doubly so in the voice of Wikipedia. Both of the definitions are already in the article, sourced.
 * The article should be renamed to a less POV/incendiary / more neutral term
 * There is no question / relevance of sources to any of these, so the demand for that being the next step is a sham maneuver. North8000 (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I simply disagree and I think others did as well. We asked for evidence that any changes were needed and whatever your arguments and stated evidence they didn't seem to sway anyone. Perhaps we have it all wrong, if so, we'll have to address fixing it when someone convinces the editors there that a structural problem exists. That hasn't happened yet. Insomesia (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, i don't agree with your assessment there of any of those three points. And your idea of a "more neutral" name is not neutral, it's a far-right conservative POV, which you think is neutral. Opposition to homosexuality will never become the more neutral title for homophobia. If you can't see that then that's your problem.
 * For a further point you've been told for 6 months that you can't rewrite an entire article to diminish one definition you disagree with, in favour of yours you do agree with, unless you have the sources to back it up.
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another deceptive summary from one of the battling folks. There was no asking for evidence of changes needed or even discussion of the changes.  There was only the highly-conditioned demand which was a sham as established above. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support admin-enforced topic ban - I don't see the slightest effective difference between an involuntary admin-enforced topic ban and a voluntary admin-enforced topic -- if the subject is actually sincere. Since there's evidence he's not been so in the past -- and his only response to said evidence hs been to suputter on about how offensive and wrong it is without actually addressing any of it -- I say go ahead and make it an involuntary topic ban to avoid any later Wiki-lawyering and/or unilateral withdrawals. --- Calton | Talk 13:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference, explained eloquently in editors have pride. NE Ent 13:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The other big difference is what the reasons for that action would be. It would be for violating my (happily and clearly given) word, given only as a quick pragmatic offer to end this, which I would consider a serious offense worth of any and all punishment. I would not be due to so "finding" from this ani, we have a lot more (thorough) work to do if that (vs. the quick pragmatic offer) were to be pursued. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support proposal - North's proposal, to not edit the talk or user pages of the Homophobia page as well as a possible split or renamed article for 1 year, is very generous and the rejection of it shows the intention of certain editors is to get rid of an 'enemy' who they view as a far-right lunatic. That sort of attitude is contrary to the supposed intent of this AN/I filing, which is to 'stop disruption'. A 1-year break certainly would stop disruption for quite a long time, solving the primary reason for this filing, but that is not enough for some editors who would prefer a topic ban on all homosexual articles or a community ban. The goal here on the part of some editors is clearly not to stop disruption, but to get rid or someone who has a view that is disagreed with. But regardless, North's offer is good and the best option here. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  14:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

 * 1) There is nothing here that suggests immediate admin action is required.  This AN/I should be closed on those grounds alone.
 * 2) The proper forum for such a case is RFC/U where there is a certain burden imposed on those making the case against another editor.
 * 3) There has been no article editing disruption, not even an accusation of such.
 * 4) The evidence of talk page disruption is dubious at best.  There is no evidence that North repeating his arguments on the talk page occasionally prevents anyone else from getting work done.  Everyone is free to ignore what anyone else says on a talk page.
 * 5) There is evidence that North's argument has not been given serious consideration.  For example, various editors have repeated here multiple times that North is free to edit the article as he wishes, provided his changes are supported by sources.  But he has repeatedly explained that his criticism of the article has nothing to do with missing information, but more with structure and scope.
 * 6) FWIW, my personal take is that this article suffers from the problem of a loosely defined topic, a problem many articles have whose titles are terms with a wide range of meanings.  Ideally, an article topic should be about only one meaning.  Just because the title of an article is a term with multiple meanings does not mean the article scope needs to cover all those meanings.  Because of WP:NOTADICTIONARY, we have no need to cover the literal dictionary definition of "homophobia".  Since usage in reliable sources is almost entirely  about the "opposition to homosexuality" meaning of the term, that's what the topic of this article should be.  But that doesn't mean the title should be Opposition to homosexuality, as the most common name used to refer to this topic is "Homophobia".
 * 7) In any case, I see nothing in North's behavior that warrants any kind of sanction whatsoever.  I suggest that those who have a problem with his talk page commentary about the article should just ignore it.

--Born2cycle (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support - This whole thread has simply gone to publicize the problem which North8000 has been claiming exists for over a year. This AN/I is an attack in and of itself; it is nothing more than a baseless accusation attempting to silence the opposition. Additionally, I think that this whole topic needs to be looked into by the administration. It seems as though the conduct regarding the talk page in question, as well as this AN/I has been dubious at best. As a user who read through the talk page archives before I got involved in the "homophobia" discussion a few months back, I can say that the tactics used by the "page watchmen" have been very unbecoming of Wikipedia and its policies. I think it's time for a boomerang here... —Maktesh (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Born2Cycle should take the time to actually understand what's going on before trotting out his vague handwaving assertions disguised as evidence. ---Calton | Talk 13:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Born2Cycle has not even read this page or followed it clearly. There is evidence of much disruption and talk page battling all over this page. Also included are links to other articles this has happened on. Logical conclusion here is that Born2Cycle is supporting an editor without looking at the evidence against them and should be ignored until he uses policies to back up his/her argument. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By that standard (policy basis) the complaint that started this would have been closed immediately. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Born2Cycle and Maktesh described the situation very accurately. The 4 attackers have put various mis-impressions here. If the quick pragmatic solution fails and, this must move on to the more thorough phase with immense numbers of diffs and true analysis which will show that the summary by Born2Cycle and Maktesh is accurate, and that the picture claimed/painted by the attackers is false.  The notification issue would also need to get rectified. So far the only notificaitons have been certain individual by the original complainant, pus the LGBT activist page.   And eventually the article talk page by me when I noticed that that was missing.  So,. yes, a boomerang is actually the most fitting, but I still offer that quick pragmatic resolution and to delay before developing the next phase. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The LGBT Wikiproject is an "LGBT Activist" project? I'd strike that and quickly North as it's a very obvious issue of bias and Attack POV you're pushing there. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't view "activist" as a negative, just not the best choice for a narrow advertisement of this thread. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the repetition of the process in Jenova's post, now against Born2Cycle. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Closure
This should really be a structured WP:RFC/U and not a call for heads by political and ideological rivals. I think this should be closed and moved to an RFC/U immediately.--v/r - TP 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One side note: we're not rivals on the broader underlying topic, but certainly strongly disagree on the much narrower question in the article and and on what has happened at the article. My offer for a quick pragmatic solution remains open.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I concur the topic of discussion -- an editor's long term behavior over the course of a year -- is much better suited to RFC/U than considering it an ANI "incident," the fact is many editors commented while it was at ANI without noting it as inappropriate. Bureaucratic closing and reopening an RFC/U would be disrespectful to everyone who has taken time to review the situation and contribute to consensus. It does seem to me formal closure by an uninvolved admin at this point would be appropriate. NE Ent 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought
Isn't the fact that this thread is currently 212K long (of which 32K has been provided by North8000 alone) a pretty good example of what the problem actually is? Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no clear consensus for (or against) a topic ban and people talk too much. NE Ent 02:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (added later) Prom a process standpoint I would consider a topic ban to be inconceivable from this process. Other than a few false vague innuendos, there has not even been any discussion of anything relevant to that. (from a pure opinion standpoint, I think that the main question is whether a boomerang is in order, but that just opinion vs . my first precess-based comment. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously?? Black Kite, your argument, to put it lightly, is bullshit. This is a thread attacking North8000 and questioning whether a topic ban is appropriate. Of course he's going to spend some time discussing it and defending himself. By my estimate, that's a little under a seventh of the conversation. I'd say he's entitled to that. Honestly, this kind of crap is what the page's guardians has been throwing around for some time. Words can't describe how frustrating your statement is... —Maktesh (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Black Kite that the problem is with ALL the people in this report at this point. --Malerooster (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also when the invitees consist of just individuals by the original complainant plus the LGBT project, making the case will require more per-capita posts by folks from underrepresented side. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick pragmatic solution or time to start the next more thorough phase?
My offer of a quick pragmatic solution is still open. I'd be happy to stay completely away from the article (including its talk page, and any article that results from its renaming or split) for a year, if it's basis is solely as a offered quick pragmatic solution. Since this was just pain I was enduring on behalf of Wikipedia, this offer is happily made. I now add to that an offer to not file any notices relating to that article or this ANI if the above becomes the full and final resolution. Again, these offers are just until I get deep in on the huge work on the next phase, if it comes to that. Per the "dissection of a myth" chronology, this ANI was moot before it started (it was filed 16 hours after I AGREED with the guards, and following a relatively inactive 10 weeks) and this offer makes it doubly moot. The next more thorough phase of analysis will clearly show (backed up by an immense amount of analysis and diffs) that there is no basis for an ANI and that, if any action is justified, it would be a boomerang. Let's (and I) acknowledge that the folks involved disagree on the latter, so a major exchange here to say that is not necessary. Also a more diverse notification than the problematic current one would be called for. I have been holding up on beginning this work to see if the quick pragmatic solution is possible. Is it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been observing these discussions without commenting until now, but I've decided to say something at this point: please take this offer. There has been enough discussion here, and further discussion is not going to accomplish anything more. There is no need to declare "winners" and "losers", however much some people might think that they would find gratification in it. If the offer proves to work out, fine. If it doesn't, then there will be a basis for further DR. In the mean time, it is in Wikipedia's best interests, and all discussants' best interests, to accept this offer, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support North8000's offer.-- В и к и  T   15:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems eminently fair as a proposal. Collect (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. With reservations, I supported this the first time it was offered. Since then, there have been implied threats and repeated mentions of a boomerang from the subject of the original complaint, as well as a raft of irresponsible, offensive counteraccusations from his supporters. This sounds very much like "Take this—or else" and I cannot support any such proposal. Boomerangs are best either dropped or thrown; brandishing them is just obnoxious. Rivertorch (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, I've had the experience of working very positively with you on a page that is indirectly related to the subject matter here. I've also worked very positively with North on a policy page that is unrelated. I think I can empathize with both "sides" of this dispute. I understand what bothers you here. But I'd ask you to consider letting it pass, for the greater good. If the offer leads to more peaceful editing, then you will have a pleasant surprise. If future events prove me wrong, then you will have a clearer path to DR. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, even though we have directly and actively disagreed, you have always been fair and taken the "high road", are not one of the people attacking me, and I have no complaints. I am absolutely confident of how the next more thorough phase would turn out, starting with a dissection (with supporting analysis and diffs) of the false impressions left by the complaint / 4 people actively going after me.  And so I do offer the quick pragmatic solution, and otherwise certainly plan to proceed to the next much more thorough phase. I think that this is very fair and reasonable response to vague false accusations. Even if it is shown that a boomerang is more appropriate, I don't intend to request any actions against the attackers. I think that the daylight of a full analysis and dissection (and seeing that it is the opposite of the impression that they sought to leave) would be a sufficient force for good in that area. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose (Again) This is not a dispute over content; it's a notice for an admin to intervene to protect the project, and uphold our policies and guidelines. North8000's offer has not been made in good faith and he, along with a few supporters, are desperately trying to manipulate and derail the process with sidebars, soapboxing and off-topic screeds. With more than 1000 admins, I would have thought that one would have closed this ANI days ago. What a shame. - MrX 17:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You want him banned for what you consider disruption on a talk page. He is offering to leave the page entirely for an entire year, ending the 'disruption'. How does that not solve the problem? North's offer covers the page and talk as well as any resulting pages from moves or renamings, and if he violates his deal he has agreed a block is warranted. I see no reason, aside from pure spite or a desire to remove an 'enemy' permanently, that you would reject the offer. It solves the issue you present, so why not accept it? <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  18:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your question by quoting myself: "...he has clearly exhausted the patience of the community at the Homophobia talk page. ... I recommend at minimum a permanent article ban, or possibly a topic ban, to protect the article talk page and restore a collegial editing environment. ... I wish I could believe that he could just walk away, but I just don't think it's possible based on past experience. ... [To North8000] I'm concerned that you do not see this as a problem, and seem only to accept the possibility of disengaging from the talk page voluntarily, equivocally and on your terms. I'm sorry, but that seems like a disingenuous plea made under the weight of a potential topic or article ban. ... I would oppose a self-enforced article talk page ban, and lean more strongly toward a full topic ban based on North8000's refusal to accept accountability, his similar tendentious involvement in other LGBT articles and a demonstrated failure to follow through on prior commitments."


 * I'm not sure why you believe that North8000 can be trusted to follow through on his commitment based on his evident inability to do so in the past. I also don't understand why you would suggest that this is motivated by spite or that there is a desire to remove an 'enemy', but please feel free to provide any evidence to support that conjecture. - MrX 19:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he can be trusted to follow through because he has made clear (and it has been made clear to him) that violating the agreement will result in a block. By not realizing that it makes me think you either haven't examined the proposal thoroughly or are not willing to settle for anything other than a topic ban. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000 will either abide by his decision to voluntarily withdraw or he won't. If he does, problem solved for at least a year. If he doesn't I trust the community will quickly and decisively address the situation then. Acceptance by the original requestor(s) would not be putting trust in North8000, it would be putting trust in the community at large; at least one admin, Kim Dent-Brown is on record as saying he would treat North8000's changing his mind a blockable offense. The continued refusal to accept a compromise solution makes it appear the requestor(s) are interested in something other than dispute resolution. The fact that none of the administrators who have reviewed this thread have chosen to unilaterally take action, and the support / oppose topic ban ratio is, at best, modest, is a strong indication the community does not share MrX's analysis of the situation. NE Ent 20:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MrX is one of the 4 warriors and ostensibly will never be "convinced" and MrX's "doubts" have become incredulous. But for any others who have a sincere question, I am repeating that I would consider a violation of my clearly given word to be a serious offense worthy of any an all possible punishment. Kim Dent-Brown, please block me from the entire Wikipedia for a year if I violate my clearly given word, as I have detailed.  Sincerely North8000 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe this confirms that North is serious, this is a good faith offer (contrary to Mr. X's statement), and that North does intend to keep his word because he set the bar very high for punishments. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  22:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000 has not kept his word repeatedly. Insomesia (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So that would potentially ease the situation on that one article, at least for a year, without you accepting your behavior was problematic, and under the looming topic ban. The concern remains you would engage in this same disruptive behavior on other articles. Would you voluntarily be year-long blocked for similar behavior elsewhere. If not why should we believe that anything will change? You admit no problems of your own and instead blame other editors for your behavior, and not accepting your POV on how articles should be structured, and named. Insomesia (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are so many false implied premises in what you just wrote that it is impossible to answer without a lengthy dissection. Plus you are one of the entrenched attackers/warriors and ostensibly will never be convinced of anything here. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Support offer per my comments in a higher section. I think the fact that the person who proposed the topic ban in the first place is rejecting such a favorable offer shows what kind of reason he started this for. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  18:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weakly Oppose - This offer is an attempt to find a "quick and pragmatic solution" to the problem. Why do we need to do that? If this issue is as deeply rooted as this thread has made it out to be, then is it really the best option to temporarily table this? It will come up again later, and regardless, this is only involving one editor (albeit the champion) as it relates to this problem. This "solution" seems to be burying the problem rather than hashing it out. The cards are all out on the table at the moment, so why not finish it here and now? I do support North8000's offer of good faith, and it shows his willingness to work this out however it needs to be done. But I see this as avoiding the overarching problem. —Maktesh (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article's "problem" was hashed out again and again. What remains is North8000's behavior issues. Insomesia (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And there has been no clear consensus, and no resolution has been reached. At least his "behavior issues" don't include puppy-guarding a page for political gain. And what's this about WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Failure to get the point... no, I think he's gotten the point. By the same token you're throwing out, you're not hearing him. —Maktesh (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. North8000 is still not admitting any problem with behavior, still blaming other editors for their own actions, no commitment to abide by consensus, and still threatening the same article with a battle of WP:Fringe and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I'm not seeing anything convincing that North8000 is willing to put down the stick if not forced to by admin actions. Continually caging this as a activist LGBT cabal against them is overwhelmingly false and misleading. That others have opined that essentially no one should ever get topic banned away from LGBT topics makes me suspect that they just aren't reading the lengthy archives devoted to North8000's POV, that was entertained and dismissed as not conforming to Wikipedia's policies. This issue would be the same on any article on any subject and talkpages should simply never be held to court one editor's demands of everyone else. This is another testament to how one editor can sap the energies of so many other editors and still be a net negative to accomplishing anything. I hope this page serves as a last warning that calling other editors guards for following WP:NOR and WP:Reliable sources is itself disruptive. Insomesia (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are so many false implied premises in what you just wrote that it is impossible to answer without a lengthy dissection.  Insomnia is another of the 4. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We see frequent appeals to the wishes of "the community" for so limiting discussion and punishing offenders as an example, but apparently, that isn't the same thing as guardianship? North has a point, and unwillingness to take compromise offer and insistence on blood is what I'd think brings the threat of a boomerang, which can be a bitch. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. North8000 appears to me to maintain the view that the main problem is a small clique of editors opposing him in bad faith. William Avery (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why this should be dealt with now. If his accusations are valid, then it is a grave mistake to let this problem go. —Maktesh (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If we really want to review it thoroughly, we need another ANI of a different title/focus. North8000 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per William Avery above and my conversation with North below. User still exclusively blames others for all his problems. I doubt though whether a topic ban will be enough. It's a start though if this is the main current locus of his problematic editing. Reluctant to trust that he will keep his promise to voluntarily stay away from homophobia as apparently he has made and broken this promise repeatedly in the past. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - North still refuses to accept any responsibility and is actually making vague threats with his boomerang references. He cannot accept any responsibility and he refuses to answer questions without claiming either that he has been misquoted, or that the issue has been sidestepped and there's no point responding. I fully support a topic ban since he cannot check his bias at the door before he edits. He also accused the entire LGBT wikiproject of being the Activist Wikiproject which is a cause for concern that he feels he has an issue not just with the homophobia definition, but also feels he has to attack editors just for having an interest in LGBT topics and his perceived view of their sexuality. If it causes him so many problems then he should not edit the topic. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Process note / question to ADMINS. As I originally said (with agreement) at the talk page when this unusual move was made,   "This has the scope, topic, venue, structure, fog, superficiality etc. of a (now moot) INCIDENT claim, and should be handled solely as such." To this I would add that the described problematic narrow invitee list takes away any validity as being anything else such as being input from the community (or cross section thereof) and even with that invitation skew it appears that there is no consensus. With my offer, the "incident" is now twice over MOOT and as an anI it could and should be closed as such. If it isn't closed on that quick pragmatic basis, I am ready to move on to the much more thorough analysis phase here, but wouldn't the more proper way to handle this be to say that anyone who feels that something else is needed should be told to post an RFC/U? North8000 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This may be of interest. North edits article talk (31.59%) more than articles (26.25%) and Wikipedia (15.15%) and Wikipedia talk (17.03%) collectively most of all. Is this somebody who is here to improve the encyclopedia, or somebody who is here to converse? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no "next phase"
ArbCom is in the midst of an election. Any "next phase" is unlikely to occur for months (figure February at the very earliest), and then take up to three months to actually be resolved, if then. And ArbCom reads the RfC/U and is qute likely to note the refusal of some to accept a rational proposal from North8000 in any case. This idea that "we didn't get what we wanted (big blocks or bans) so we will not accept an offer short of going to ArbCom which will ban this person if we are perseverant" (or the like) is unrealistic, and likely is grounds for any closing admin to ignore such !votes in the close. (Noting that there is no consensus for a block or topic ban of any magnitude currently) Insisting on a "next phase" in this case is simply perseverance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. I am absolutely confident of what the results of any thorough review and analysis would be which is debunking of the false impressions that the attackers have been trying to promulgate.  Less  so with this mess-to-date here with the listed problems and the deceptive complaint yet to be fully analyzed, dissected  and debunked, and the problematic narrow invitee list. But even with all of those issues-to-date, it has been a non consensus, as you describe.  So if there is anything but the offered simple quick pragmatic solution or a no-consensus as you suggest, there would need to be a more thorough next phase. Or more to the point, close this here on the grounds that you describe, and if somebody feels that they got something, they can pursue that afterwards.   North8000 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * North8000, do you think you have learned anything useful about how others perceive your behaviour, or modified your style in any way as a result of this discussion? I think that's the key question here. I came here after we had this rather unedifying discussion following your revert of my edits and insulting description of them as "chaotic". I see some commonality between this episode and your activity at the homophobia talk page; namely, reliance on opinion (yours), failure to listen to others, combative approach rather than harmonious collaboration, and dogged persistence even when several others disagree with you. I see you defending yourself a lot, calling others out for what you see as problematic in their behaviour, but I don't see evidence that you have entered any process of self-reflection. That's a shame if it's true. Is it true? Do you still consider all of this to be other people's fault? --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that what is at the link that you gave establishes that it is the opposite of the way that you are characterizing it. I will invite others to follow the link that you gave and let that speak for itself. There are so many false implied premises in your other questions that an answer (which would necessarily address those to start) would be too lengthy. North8000 (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for giving such a candid answer. It is entirely as I expected, and shows you have learned nothing and still blame others for all the trouble that surrounds your editing. On this basis, I'm afraid you probably will need to be restricted, if not now then later. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)